The Theory of Evolution

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Philosopher
    replied
    What Is The Difference Between Macroevolution And Microevolution?
    by John D. Morris, Ph.D.

    There is much misinformation about these two words, and yet, understanding them is perhaps the crucial prerequisite for understanding the creation/evolution issue.

    Macroevolution refers to major evolutionary changes over time, the origin of new types of organisms from previously existing, but different, ancestral types. Examples of this would be fish descending from an invertebrate animal, or whales descending from a land mammal. The evolutionary concept demands these bizarre changes.

    Microevolution refers to varieties within a given type. Change happens within a group, but the descendant is clearly of the same type as the ancestor. This might better be called variation, or adaptation, but the changes are "horizontal" in effect, not "vertical." Such changes might be accomplished by "natural selection," in which a trait within the present variety is selected as the best for a given set of conditions, or accomplished by "artificial selection," such as when dog breeders produce a new breed of dog.

    The small or microevolutionary changes occur by recombining existing genetic material within the group. As Gregor Mendel observed with his breeding studies on peas in the mid 1800's, there are natural limits to genetic change. A population of organisms can vary only so much. What causes macroevolutionary change?

    Genetic mutations produce new genetic material, but do these lead to macroevolution? No truly useful mutations have ever been observed. The one most cited is the disease sickle-cell anemia, which provides an enhanced resistance to malaria. How could the occasionally deadly disease of SSA ever produce big-scale change?

    Evolutionists assume that the small, horizontal microevolutionary changes (which are observed) lead to large, vertical macroevolutionary changes (which are never observed). This philosophical leap of faith lies at the eve of evolution thinking.

    A review of any biology textbook will include a discussion of microevolutionary changes. This list will include the variety of beak shape among the finches of the Galapagos Islands, Darwin's favorite example. Always mentioned is the peppered moth in England, a population of moths whose dominant color shifted during the Industrial Revolution, when soot covered the trees. Insect populations become resistant to DDT, and germs become resistant to antibiotics. While in each case, observed change was limited to microevolution, the inference is that these minor changes can be extrapolated over many generations to macroevolution.

    In 1980 about 150 of the world's leading evolutionary theorists gathered at the University of Chicago for a conference entitled "Macroevolution." Their task: "to consider the mechanisms that underlie the origin of species" (Lewin, Science vol. 210, pp. 883-887). "The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution . . . the answer can be given as a clear, No."

    Thus the scientific observations support the creation tenet that each basic type is separate and distinct from all others, and that while variation is inevitable, macroevolution does not and did not happen.
    * Dr. John Morris is President of ICR.

    Last edited by Philosopher; 10-30-2014, 01:02 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • spitfire
    replied
    Originally posted by Philosopher View Post
    We are not discussing micro-evolution. And micro-evolution has never brought new species. That is an absurd statement.

    I suggest you learn the subject before making future posts.
    I suggest that you learn what a spieces is before anything else.

    Leave a comment:


  • Philosopher
    replied
    Originally posted by spitfire View Post
    No, we are talking about evolution in general. Micro ecolution has brought new species, so this is valid.

    I will explain about my sabbatical only in your next new thread about the flat earth.
    We are not discussing micro-evolution. And micro-evolution has never brought new species. That is an absurd statement.

    I suggest you learn the subject before making future posts.

    Leave a comment:


  • spitfire
    replied
    Originally posted by Philosopher View Post
    I see your Sabbatical did not help you.

    No creationist denies micro-evolution. Micro-evolution is an observable fact. Within species there are differences. Some people have big noses, some have small; some have blue eyes and some green; some horses are brown; and some are white.

    This is not evidence of macro-evolution.

    We are discussing macro-evolution.
    No, we are talking about evolution in general. Micro ecolution has brought new species, so this is valid.

    I will explain about my sabbatical only in your next new thread about the flat earth.

    Leave a comment:


  • Philosopher
    replied
    Originally posted by spitfire View Post
    Conclusion

    The Galapagos finches were not as important to Darwin as is often claimed, but they are a good example of micro-evolution. They show us that finches can vary in their morphology, and that natural selection has a role in this.


    I'm sure somebody missed that on their rush to prove sb wrong
    I see your Sabbatical did not help you.

    No creationist denies micro-evolution. Micro-evolution is an observable fact. Within species there are differences. Some people have big noses, some have small; some have blue eyes and some green; some horses are brown; and some are white.

    This is not evidence of macro-evolution.

    We are discussing macro-evolution.

    Leave a comment:


  • spitfire
    replied
    Conclusion

    The Galapagos finches were not as important to Darwin as is often claimed, but they are a good example of micro-evolution. They show us that finches can vary in their morphology, and that natural selection has a role in this.


    I'm sure somebody missed that on their rush to prove sb wrong

    Leave a comment:


  • Philosopher
    replied
    Originally posted by spitfire View Post
    It has. You probably haven't seen it all. The finches is a well known example of evolution in the galapagos islands.

    Explaining from a single cell to a dog would take octillions of information just to describe one organism. This video is supposed to explain the way evolution works and it does so by explaining the key factors of evolution, not give you every information for every single mollecule for every mutation, for every natural selection, for every hereditary re-combination.
    False.

    School children are often taught that the finches of the Galapagos Islands were very important in helping Darwin to come up with his theory of evolution. The BBC is mistaken in much of what it says here. When he was on the Galapagos Islands, Darwin did not notice that different islands had different finches. Neither did he realise that the finches were closely related despite their differences in beak shape. He did not match different beak shapes to different diets. Even after his return to London, Darwin's biographers note that he "remained confused by the Galapagos finches...unaware of the importance of their different beaks...He had no sense of a single, closely related group becoming specialized and adapted to different environmental niches." (p. 209, Darwin - A. Desmond and J. Moore).

    Darwin did not mention the finches in his book The Origin of Species. They only appear in his Journal, being mentioned only in passing in the first edition (1839), and then having a few paragraphs and a picture six years later in the revised edition (1845).

    So all Darwin did was speculate that the different finches had descended from a common ancestor and had changed to be able to do different things. He was never sure that the different species were from different islands. He certainly never came up with the detailed theory for how the finches diversified which the BBC suggests.

    The BBC makes this mistake because a myth has arisen around these Galapagos Finches. They were never known as "Darwin's Finches" until 1936, and the name was popularised by ornithologist David Lack in his book Darwin's Finches (1947). Lack described the detailed account of Finch evolution, recounted by the BBC, and also promoted the myth that the finches had given Darwin important insights into evolution.

    "Darwin's Finches" are found repeatedly in school biology textbooks, and the WJEC A-Level Biology syllabus and the Intermediate 2 Biology syllabus mandate their teaching.

    What do the Finches demonstrate about evolution?

    Though the finches were not important in the work of Charles Darwin, they do tell us something about evolution. In particular, over the past few decades, two scientists have done an excellent long term study on the finches on one of the Galapagos Islands. This is accurately described by the textbook Advanced Biology. (Jones, M., and G. Jones. 1997. Cambridge University Press) The authors recount how from 1977 to 1982 there was a drought on one of the Galapagos Islands, and due to natural selection the average finch beak size became larger…

    “However, this proved not to be the end of the story. If it continued in this way, the average beak size of G. fortis would continue to get larger and larger. But this has not happened” (p. 153)

    This cumulative change does not occur for two reasons. (1) There are disadvantages to having a large beak, especially when a bird is young. This can outweigh the advantages. (2) The selection pressure on the island fluctuates. In 1982 the drought stopped and there was selection for birds with small beaks.

    It can therefore be argued that the study shows natural limits to evolutionary change. Variation in a species is a good thing, as it gives them the ability to cope with environmental change, but variation does have limits.

    Many textbooks do not go into such detail, and simply describe the finches as a good example of a range of species evolving from a common ancestor.

    Conclusion

    The Galapagos finches were not as important to Darwin as is often claimed, but they are a good example of micro-evolution. They show us that finches can vary in their morphology, and that natural selection has a role in this.

    This study does not give evidence for macro-evolution, and does not prove that natural selection and random mutation could produce the living world as we know it from simple single-celled ancestors.

    Leave a comment:


  • spitfire
    replied
    Originally posted by Vangelovski View Post
    It didn't explain anything in any detail for the finches - it just pressuposed evolution was true and made unsubstantiated statements about how the finches may have changed. But that could also be explained by re-combination and losses of information. Going from a single cell molecule to a finch would require new information to be produced and there is still no explanation for that.

    As for your comment on dogs, you still fail to explain how new information would be produced to enable the wings to grow.
    It has. You probably haven't seen it all. The finches is a well known example of evolution in the galapagos islands.

    Explaining from a single cell to a dog would take octillions of information just to describe one organism. This video is supposed to explain the way evolution works and it does so by explaining the key factors of evolution, not give you every information for every single mollecule for every mutation, for every natural selection, for every hereditary re-combination.
    Last edited by spitfire; 10-30-2014, 11:48 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Philosopher
    replied
    Originally posted by Vicsinad
    Most of us know the answer. It's because your interpretation of the Bible -- or the Bible without any interpretation -- says the Earth is "x" years old.
    If you are going to present something as a fact, please provide evidence. The Bible gives no date when God created the universe or the planet earth. So the Bible does not in fact say the earth is “x” years old.

    Originally posted by Vicsinad
    And because you don't want to question any aspects of the Bible, you will try your damn hardest to make the world around you fit into the views espoused in a book of which you really have little idea on how it came to be.
    Another series of problematic statements. What makes you think he has blind faith? What makes you think he has little idea how this book came to be?

    Originally posted by Vicsinad
    An honest evolutionist admits that they do know how new information, in the context of genes and phenotypes, is produced. They also admit, as I have, that they don't know precisely how the information we have in this world originated; but they also admit that that is not necessary to know in order to understand evolution.
    An honest evolutionist would have to admit that the theory of evolution is based on the belief that a mindless, unguided, and undirected natural processes produced out of nothing very sophisticated and highly cogent information that in any under setting can only be consistent with a rational intelligent mind.
    Last edited by Philosopher; 10-30-2014, 11:46 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • vicsinad
    replied
    You still haven't responded to the H2O aspect.

    H and O are two elements on the periodic table. They have their own properties. H2O is water....that stuff you drink and swim in and bathe with. It can also appear as ice and water vapor. This is "new" ...meaning, H2O can do things that neither H, 2 H's, or O can do alone. However, H2O did not require the creation of anything other than H and O, which already exist, in order to create something with "new" properties that aren't seen in H or O. Huh, something "new" has arisen from the same old information.


    Are you suggesting that chemistry isn't true, and just a religion, because it can't, or doesn't, explain how H and O came to be? I assume not. I assume that you will say that God gave the properties to H and O in order to from the properties of water. Which is fine. Many God believers do believe that, and they do believe the same thing is true for genes, because genes are composed of elements: God gave the elements properties.

    Now that we are assuming that God gave the elements its properties, why are you willing to accept the chemical nature of water and thus accept chemistry but not the chemistry of genes and thus accept evolution, when genes are made of the same elements that all other chemicals are made up of?


    Most of us know the answer. It's because your interpretation of the Bible -- or the Bible without any interpretation -- says the Earth is "x" years old. And because you don't want to question any aspects of the Bible, you will try your damn hardest to make the world around you fit into the views espoused in a book of which you really have little idea on how it came to be.

    Leave a comment:


  • vicsinad
    replied
    Originally posted by Constellation View Post
    Then can you please explain to us why your arguments thus far have been founding wanting?
    I don't understand what you mean.

    Leave a comment:


  • vicsinad
    replied
    I've never changed my definition of information.
    Maybe because you never defined it clearly.



    An honest evolutionist would admit that they don't know how new information could be produced but that one day they might
    .

    An honest evolutionist admits that they do know how new information, in the context of genes and phenotypes, is produced. They also admit, as I have, that they don't know precisely how the information we have in this world originated; but they also admit that that is not necessary to know in order to understand evolution.

    You have so much zeal for evolution that you can't accept supposed basic scientific principles that if a theory is unworkable, then you should either revise it or drop it.
    You're the one who admitted you didn't understand the articles I posted and needed a dumbing down. I dumbed it down the best I could and you still don't understand. Maybe you should spent some effort in schooling yourself?


    You want us to believe that all living things evolved from one single cell molecule with no addition of any new information in between.
    No. I want you to accept that all the same elements that have existed prior to life are all the same elements that exist with the origins of life.
    Still, this hinges on your definition of new information. If, by new information, you really do mean a hand or a penis or a brain, I am telling you that it needs no different elements or chemicals than already existed prior to their development. It is about the organization, as you have alluded to, and the interactions of those elements that allows "new" information in the form of "different" genes. Yet, these genes do not contain anything new.
    Even evolutionary zealots like Dawkins accepted that new information was needed for evolution and attempted to develop theories of how new information may have been produced, but you just claim that no new information is needed in the transition from molecule to dinosaur.
    Again, you don't even know the definition of "information" that you or Dawkins are alluding to.

    ajflakfjdlakjfaklfjds

    Did anyone understand the above? No. Why? Because information isn't just chemicals.

    In the example above, the letters need to be conceived of in the first place by intelligence,
    Again, evolution is not concerned with how the letters came to be.

    a message needs to be formulated, again by intelligence
    Evolution is not driven by any purpose or meaning. A chemical message doesn't have to be formulated -- it just was formulated.

    But to use your simplistic and unrelated example of random letters:

    fadatrhaqhfar

    I just pressed random keys on my computer. The beginnings of a so-called message are there...I recognize two thins: fad and far. Still, it doesn't mean anything because you're assuming that evolution has intentions. It doesn't.


    and then the letters need to be arranged exactly, again, by intelligence.
    No, they do not, not according to evolution. You're also ignoring the fact that letters (elements) have certain properties that will not cause them to act in ways outside the boundaries of their properties. Also, what you're arguing here is not the creation, but the arrangement and organization. The evidence exists for this in genetics and evolutionary processes, as you have acknowledged previously.

    Chemicals can't do anything without information to direct them.
    As I wrote above, each element has unique properties. These unique properties limit what an element will do and how it will interact with other elements. Chemists don't need to know why, or how, each element got its properties to understand chemistry. Because genetics really is just chemistry on the molecular level, evolutionists do not need to understand how each element got its properties to understand genes.

    Evolutionists can't say where this information came from in the first place
    Again, you're interchanging how you use the word information. Evolution does not need to, and has never claimed, they know the origins of elements.

    or how new information is produced in addition to existing information to allow for evolution itself.
    Again, how "new" information, in the sense of genes and phenotypes, has been explained.
    Last edited by vicsinad; 10-30-2014, 09:44 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Constellation
    replied
    Originally posted by Vicsinad
    find it cool how you're creating topics I have degrees in.
    Then can you please explain to us why your arguments thus far have been founding wanting?

    Leave a comment:


  • Philosopher
    replied
    Here is some good information from an online article by Meyer:

    For example, consider two sequences of characters:"Four score and seven years ago"

    "nenen ytawoi jll sn mekhdx nnx"

    Both of these sequences have an equal number of characters. Since both are composed of the same 26-letter English alphabet, the probability of producing each of those two sequences at random is identical. Therefore, both sequences have an equal amount of information as measured by Shannon's theory. Nevertheless, the first of these sequences performs a communication function, while the second does not.

    When discussing information in a biological context, we must distinguish sequences of characters that are (a) merely improbable from (b) sequences that are improbable and also specifically arranged so as to perform a function. Following Francis Crick himself, I show that DNA-base sequences do not just possess "information" in the strictly mathematical sense of Shannon's theory. Instead, DNA contains information in the richer and more ordinary sense of "alternative sequences or arrangements of characters that produce a specific effect." DNA-base sequences convey assembly instructions. They perform functions in virtue of their specific arrangements. Thus, they do not possess mere "Shannon information," but instead "specified" or "functional information." Indeed, like the precisely arranged zeros and ones in a computer program, the chemical bases in DNA convey instructions in virtue of their "specificity."
    While my book presents intelligent design as an alternative to chemical evolutionary theory, Venema critiques it as if it had presented a critique of neo-Darwinism — i.e.

    Leave a comment:


  • Philosopher
    replied
    In the book "Signature in the Cell" by Stephen C. Meyer, he states on page 347

    Our uniform experience affirms that specified information-whether inscribed hieroglyphics, written in a book, encoded in a radio signal, or produced in a simulation experiment-always arises from an intelligent source, from a mind and not a strictly material process.
    This is a reasonable statement. Contrast this to the idea that a mindless, unguided, and undirected natural processes produced information, and not just information, but highly sophisticated information far more advanced than any modern computer software program.

    This signature in the cell is the signature of the Logos.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X