Total Posts:39|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Micro-evolution but not Macro-evolution ???

twocupcakes
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 3:35:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I have heard that some people believe in micro-evolution, but not macro-evolution. I do not understand this. Micro-evolution is a small change over a small time. Macro-evolution is a large change over a large amount of time. If someone believes that small changes can occur over a short amount of time, then they must believe that more small changes can happen as the length of time is increased. These many small changes will result in one big change. It seems that if someone believes micro-evolution can happen they must believe that macro-evolution can happen. To me, believing in micro but not macro is like saying "I believe an oak tree seed can sprout into a plant, but it will never grow into giant tree".

If there is anyone that believes micro-evolution can happen but not macro I would be really interested in hearing your opinion, and trying to understand your point of view. I have never really understood this position.Thanks!
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 3:43:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/10/2012 3:35:53 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
I have heard that some people believe in micro-evolution, but not macro-evolution. I do not understand this. Micro-evolution is a small change over a small time. Macro-evolution is a large change over a large amount of time. If someone believes that small changes can occur over a short amount of time, then they must believe that more small changes can happen as the length of time is increased. These many small changes will result in one big change. It seems that if someone believes micro-evolution can happen they must believe that macro-evolution can happen. To me, believing in micro but not macro is like saying "I believe an oak tree seed can sprout into a plant, but it will never grow into giant tree".

If there is anyone that believes micro-evolution can happen but not macro I would be really interested in hearing your opinion, and trying to understand your point of view. I have never really understood this position.Thanks!

You're asking from the opinions of those people, and I don't really hold their opinins, but...

I am assuming they believe in micro evolution because it is the only testable form of evolution. Micro evolution doesn't prove macro evolution because macro evolution s far, far more complex.

I believe in evolution and I believe in God, but I also believe that a theory of evolution requires direct observations which are impossible at this point. It's for this reason why people who shun micro evolution over macro make the most sense scientifically IMO.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 4:01:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/10/2012 3:43:25 PM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
At 5/10/2012 3:35:53 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
I have heard that some people believe in micro-evolution, but not macro-evolution. I do not understand this. Micro-evolution is a small change over a small time. Macro-evolution is a large change over a large amount of time. If someone believes that small changes can occur over a short amount of time, then they must believe that more small changes can happen as the length of time is increased. These many small changes will result in one big change. It seems that if someone believes micro-evolution can happen they must believe that macro-evolution can happen. To me, believing in micro but not macro is like saying "I believe an oak tree seed can sprout into a plant, but it will never grow into giant tree".

If there is anyone that believes micro-evolution can happen but not macro I would be really interested in hearing your opinion, and trying to understand your point of view. I have never really understood this position.Thanks!

You're asking from the opinions of those people, and I don't really hold their opinins, but...

I am assuming they believe in micro evolution because it is the only testable form of evolution. Micro evolution doesn't prove macro evolution because macro evolution s far, far more complex.

I believe in evolution and I believe in God, but I also believe that a theory of evolution requires direct observations which are impossible at this point. It's for this reason why people who shun micro evolution over macro make the most sense scientifically IMO.

Thanks. Okay. They may believe in micro and not believe in macro. They may not believe that macro happened, but shouldn't they believe that macro is possible? If they believe that small changes can happen. They must believe that many small changes can happen. Many small changes = 1 big change. So whether or not they believe that Macro happened, they should believe that it is possible.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 4:03:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/10/2012 3:43:25 PM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
At 5/10/2012 3:35:53 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
I have heard that some people believe in micro-evolution, but not macro-evolution. I do not understand this. Micro-evolution is a small change over a small time. Macro-evolution is a large change over a large amount of time. If someone believes that small changes can occur over a short amount of time, then they must believe that more small changes can happen as the length of time is increased. These many small changes will result in one big change. It seems that if someone believes micro-evolution can happen they must believe that macro-evolution can happen. To me, believing in micro but not macro is like saying "I believe an oak tree seed can sprout into a plant, but it will never grow into giant tree".

If there is anyone that believes micro-evolution can happen but not macro I would be really interested in hearing your opinion, and trying to understand your point of view. I have never really understood this position.Thanks!

You're asking from the opinions of those people, and I don't really hold their opinins, but...

I am assuming they believe in micro evolution because it is the only testable form of evolution. Micro evolution doesn't prove macro evolution because macro evolution s far, far more complex.

I believe in evolution and I believe in God, but I also believe that a theory of evolution requires direct observations which are impossible at this point. It's for this reason why people who shun micro evolution over macro make the most sense scientifically IMO.

Didnt we have a long long discussion in the science forums to which you have yet to reply to, where we demonstrated that science doesnt require direct observation, such as the Orbital period of pluto which could not possibly be observed due to the fact that it takes 250 years to complete a full orbit?
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 4:06:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Thanks. Okay. They may believe in micro and not believe in macro. They may not believe that macro happened, but shouldn't they believe that macro is possible? If they believe that small changes can happen. They must believe that many small changes can happen. Many small changes = 1 big change. So whether or not they believe that Macro happened, they should believe that it is possible.

I think if we close our minds to what is possible, that is bad. What you're talking about is a very specific group of people, probably some who love God. These people probably know enough to have seen articles showing evolution occurring at the micro level, and concede this, but maybe they think it's meaningless because, even though evolution has been shown in short time scales, they still believe it doesn't disprove a 6000 year old Earth/Universe age.

Without speaking for them, I really don't know their exact logic, but it makes perfect sense to only accept micro evolution as a part of accepted science whatever they think about the possibility of it on larger scales.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 4:11:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Accepting "micro" evolution but rejecting "macro" evolution is like accepting that you can add 1 to 1 enough times to make 100 but not 1,000,000,000.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 4:31:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The bucket analogy helps: microevolution is the tap water drip drip dripping, it's each drop that goes into the bucket. Macroevolution is when the bucket is full.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 4:34:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/10/2012 4:31:42 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
The bucket analogy helps: microevolution is the tap water drip drip dripping, it's each drop that goes into the bucket. Macroevolution is when the bucket is full.

That is assuming that evolution is a continuous process and that there isn't a leak in the bucket that causes the water to drain at the same or greater rate.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 4:37:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/10/2012 4:34:07 PM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
At 5/10/2012 4:31:42 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
The bucket analogy helps: microevolution is the tap water drip drip dripping, it's each drop that goes into the bucket. Macroevolution is when the bucket is full.

That is assuming that evolution is a continuous process and that there isn't a leak in the bucket that causes the water to drain at the same or greater rate.

Oh, so you concede that small evolutionary changes can aggregate into large ones but that there is some, as yet unknown, proccess which inhibits this from happening?
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 4:49:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Oh, so you concede that small evolutionary changes can aggregate into large ones but that there is some, as yet unknown, proccess which inhibits this from happening?

I'm simply saying that micro evolution does not prove macro evolution. They are two completely different things. You don't grow a horn or a limb by changing the structure of individual cells (not talking about DNA here). You do it by changing how the cells are arranged.

If micro evolution can lead to the larger changes, then it must assume that the same randomness that brought the changes would also not be able to reverse it or render it meaningless.

That's why, again, in order to prove he Theory of Evolution as it relates to how larger creatures evolved, experimentation is required over said large time scales.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 5:21:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/10/2012 3:43:25 PM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
At 5/10/2012 3:35:53 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
I have heard that some people believe in micro-evolution, but not macro-evolution. I do not understand this. Micro-evolution is a small change over a small time. Macro-evolution is a large change over a large amount of time. If someone believes that small changes can occur over a short amount of time, then they must believe that more small changes can happen as the length of time is increased. These many small changes will result in one big change. It seems that if someone believes micro-evolution can happen they must believe that macro-evolution can happen. To me, believing in micro but not macro is like saying "I believe an oak tree seed can sprout into a plant, but it will never grow into giant tree".

If there is anyone that believes micro-evolution can happen but not macro I would be really interested in hearing your opinion, and trying to understand your point of view. I have never really understood this position.Thanks!

You're asking from the opinions of those people, and I don't really hold their opinins, but...

I am assuming they believe in micro evolution because it is the only testable form of evolution. Micro evolution doesn't prove macro evolution because macro evolution s far, far more complex.

I believe in evolution and I believe in God, but I also believe that a theory of evolution requires direct observations which are impossible at this point. It's for this reason why people who shun micro evolution over macro make the most sense scientifically IMO.

Simple question. Lets say that a murder happens. The husband of the woman murdered and she was about the divorce me because of domestic abuse which had been reported y neighbors.

His alibi that he had been at my hotel at the time the murder occurred did not fly because a video-camera observed him approaching her house at the time of the murder. Her skull had been smashed by something, and a few pieces of glass were found under a desk that the murderer had failed to remove. DNA analysis and fingerprint analyses matched them to her husband.

Now nobody may have directly witnessed the murder take place but how certain would you be that the husband committed the crime?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 5:32:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Yes, I have always thought this when theists say they accept micro-evolution but not macro-evolution. This makes no sense, obviously if you let mirco-evolution take it's course long enough, it will become macro-evolution.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 5:42:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/10/2012 4:49:37 PM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
Oh, so you concede that small evolutionary changes can aggregate into large ones but that there is some, as yet unknown, proccess which inhibits this from happening?

I'm simply saying that micro evolution does not prove macro evolution. They are two completely different things. You don't grow a horn or a limb by changing the structure of individual cells (not talking about DNA here). You do it by changing how the cells are arranged.

If micro evolution can lead to the larger changes, then it must assume that the same randomness that brought the changes would also not be able to reverse it or render it meaningless.

That's why, again, in order to prove he Theory of Evolution as it relates to how larger creatures evolved, experimentation is required over said large time scales.

Micro-evolution can still lead to large scale changes even if these changes can be reversed. This is because there is always a chance to move forward.

For example, if A can "evolve" to B. B can go back to A or "evolve" to C ect. Even if the probability of going back was 99% and evolution was 1%. Over enough repetition ( a large sample size) some As would make it all the way to Z.

Furthermore, it does not seem like there would be a high probability of "going back". For this to happen, an advantage would have to become a disadvantage. For example, smart monkeys survive more and reproduce more. Monkeys become smarter. In order to go back stupider monkeys would have to survive and reproduce more. While there may be examples of advantages becoming disadvantages, it does not seem to generally be the case.

In short, evolution seems to be a continuous process. Even if changes can reverse micro-evolution, it still can lead to larger changes.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 6:09:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/10/2012 3:35:53 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
I have heard that some people believe in micro-evolution, but not macro-evolution. I do not understand this. Micro-evolution is a small change over a small time. Macro-evolution is a large change over a large amount of time. If someone believes that small changes can occur over a short amount of time, then they must believe that more small changes can happen as the length of time is increased. These many small changes will result in one big change. It seems that if someone believes micro-evolution can happen they must believe that macro-evolution can happen. To me, believing in micro but not macro is like saying "I believe an oak tree seed can sprout into a plant, but it will never grow into giant tree".

If there is anyone that believes micro-evolution can happen but not macro I would be really interested in hearing your opinion, and trying to understand your point of view. I have never really understood this position.Thanks!

Micro and Macro are very different concepts. Quickly summarized:

Micro is natural selection. This has been used by farmers for several millenia.
The agreement that changes occur within 'kinds'.

Macro evolution is the idea that an amoeba can one day become an elephant.
The idea that changes occur outside of kinds.
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 6:16:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Micro-evolution can still lead to large scale changes even if these changes can be reversed. This is because there is always a chance to move forward.

For example, if A can "evolve" to B. B can go back to A or "evolve" to C ect. Even if the probability of going back was 99% and evolution was 1%. Over enough repetition ( a large sample size) some As would make it all the way to Z.

Yeah, but you would first have to define what "evolve" means. I can have a genetic mutation within my body. Most of the time, we call this a "tumor" or a "cancer." Is this evolution? Of course not, we die from this error in genetic code.

It's because of this, of course, that there's a selection process. Now, for microevolution involving single celled organisms, we can see this in action as a "survival of the fittest" type of deal. This can happen on short time scales because:

(1) there are countless trillions of single celled organisms
(2) They have fewer parts, so small changes can have huge consequences
(3) They are not dependent on as much structure, so fewer changes would eliminate the ell's ability to grow and reproduce
(4) Because they are so small, groups become isolated from one another combined with rapid reproductive cycles, changes can envelop a population rapidy

The problem with micro evolution is when you try to use it on larger animals. Since evolution is not a definition in nature, and is just a result of life and the selection process used, there's no telling if micro evolution can lead to macro evolution since tiny changes may just be nulliified as the generations after that change progress being as animals don't have particularly short reproductive cycles and aren't as geographically isolated as micro organism.

Furthermore, it does not seem like there would be a high probability of "going back". For this to happen, an advantage would have to become a disadvantage. For example, smart monkeys survive more and reproduce more. Monkeys become smarter. In order to go back stupider monkeys would have to survive and reproduce more. While there may be examples of advantages becoming disadvantages, it does not seem to generally be the case.

That's not necessarily true. Not all changes are even advantages. In order for micro evolution in large animals to apply, it would have to a benefit large enough to not be cancelled out by reproduction with animals without that tiny mutation.

In short, evolution seems to be a continuous process. Even if changes can reverse micro-evolution, it still can lead to larger changes.

The evidence doesn't agree that evolution is continuous and gradual. It seems o show more abrupt changes than gradual ones. Whether that is due to a simply incomlete fossil record, we don't know.

As I said, we would have to perform an experiment that lasted thousands, if not milions of years to know for sure.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 6:21:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/10/2012 3:35:53 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
I have heard that some people believe in micro-evolution, but not macro-evolution. I do not understand this. Micro-evolution is a small change over a small time. Macro-evolution is a large change over a large amount of time. If someone believes that small changes can occur over a short amount of time, then they must believe that more small changes can happen as the length of time is increased. These many small changes will result in one big change. It seems that if someone believes micro-evolution can happen they must believe that macro-evolution can happen. To me, believing in micro but not macro is like saying "I believe an oak tree seed can sprout into a plant, but it will never grow into giant tree".

If there is anyone that believes micro-evolution can happen but not macro I would be really interested in hearing your opinion, and trying to understand your point of view. I have never really understood this position.Thanks!

This position exists because we can observe micro-evolution (thus denying it makes you look like an imbecile), but not macro-evolution. I wonder; have we observed speciation in creatures with tiny life cycles? I don't know.

Anyway, it's a typical dogmatic "move the goalposts" approach to evolution and has no place in informed discussion. We share a common ancestor with all the life on Earth. I don't see what that's a problem. God could have done that, right?
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 6:25:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/10/2012 6:09:17 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 5/10/2012 3:35:53 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
I have heard that some people believe in micro-evolution, but not macro-evolution. I do not understand this. Micro-evolution is a small change over a small time. Macro-evolution is a large change over a large amount of time. If someone believes that small changes can occur over a short amount of time, then they must believe that more small changes can happen as the length of time is increased. These many small changes will result in one big change. It seems that if someone believes micro-evolution can happen they must believe that macro-evolution can happen. To me, believing in micro but not macro is like saying "I believe an oak tree seed can sprout into a plant, but it will never grow into giant tree".

If there is anyone that believes micro-evolution can happen but not macro I would be really interested in hearing your opinion, and trying to understand your point of view. I have never really understood this position.Thanks!

Micro and Macro are very different concepts. Quickly summarized:

Micro is natural selection. This has been used by farmers for several millenia.
The agreement that changes occur within 'kinds'.


Macro evolution is the idea that an amoeba can one day become an elephant.
The idea that changes occur outside of kinds.

Okay. So micro is a change within "kinds" and macro is a change to a different "kind". If a "kind" continues changing and goes through many small changes, wouldn't it eventually become a different kind. For example, a monkey becomes slightly more intelligent and less hairy through natural selection. It would become become more intelligent, less hairy and be in the same kind. But eventually if this process continues, it would become so more intelligent less hairy that it would become a different kind.

It seems that if something keeps changing it becomes a different kind. If an amoeba continues to change, the end result would be so different, it would be something "other" than an amoeba. Surely, if something can undergo a small changes, it can undergo many small changes. Eventually the end result would be a larger scale change, a change to a different kind, right?
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 6:45:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/10/2012 6:16:08 PM, cbrhawk1 wrote:

Yeah, but you would first have to define what "evolve" means. I can have a genetic mutation within my body. Most of the time, we call this a "tumor" or a "cancer." Is this evolution? Of course not, we die from this error in genetic code.

Evolution is when new structures are created than aid survival.

It's because of this, of course, that there's a selection process. Now, for microevolution involving single celled organisms, we can see this in action as a "survival of the fittest" type of deal. This can happen on short time scales because:

(1) there are countless trillions of single celled organisms
(2) They have fewer parts, so small changes can have huge consequences
(3) They are not dependent on as much structure, so fewer changes would eliminate the ell's ability to grow and reproduce
(4) Because they are so small, groups become isolated from one another combined with rapid reproductive cycles, changes can envelop a population rapidy

They may be simpler but they are still amazingly complex. Also small changes in the human genetic code can have huge consequences.

The problem with micro evolution is when you try to use it on larger animals. Since evolution is not a definition in nature, and is just a result of life and the selection process used, there's no telling if micro evolution can lead to macro evolution since tiny changes may just be nulliified as the generations after that change progress being as animals don't have particularly short reproductive cycles and aren't as geographically isolated as micro organism.

That is a possibility but we already know that evolution happens from the fossil record.

Furthermore, it does not seem like there would be a high probability of "going back". For this to happen, an advantage would have to become a disadvantage. For example, smart monkeys survive more and reproduce more. Monkeys become smarter. In order to go back stupider monkeys would have to survive and reproduce more. While there may be examples of advantages becoming disadvantages, it does not seem to generally be the case.

Advantages become disadvantages when they become extreme, or the environment changes. This sometimes happens but not always.

That's not necessarily true. Not all changes are even advantages. In order for micro evolution in large animals to apply, it would have to a benefit large enough to not be canceled out by reproduction with animals without that tiny mutation.

Reproduction does not erase tiny mutations. That mutation has a 50% chance of being expressed in any given child and if an organism has many children it will likely be expressed. Also we have seem beneficial adaptations take over a population.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 7:34:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/10/2012 6:09:17 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 5/10/2012 3:35:53 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
I have heard that some people believe in micro-evolution, but not macro-evolution. I do not understand this. Micro-evolution is a small change over a small time. Macro-evolution is a large change over a large amount of time. If someone believes that small changes can occur over a short amount of time, then they must believe that more small changes can happen as the length of time is increased. These many small changes will result in one big change. It seems that if someone believes micro-evolution can happen they must believe that macro-evolution can happen. To me, believing in micro but not macro is like saying "I believe an oak tree seed can sprout into a plant, but it will never grow into giant tree".

If there is anyone that believes micro-evolution can happen but not macro I would be really interested in hearing your opinion, and trying to understand your point of view. I have never really understood this position.Thanks!

Micro and Macro are very different concepts. Quickly summarized:

Micro is natural selection. This has been used by farmers for several millenia.
The agreement that changes occur within 'kinds'.


Macro evolution is the idea that an amoeba can one day become an elephant.
The idea that changes occur outside of kinds.

Well, organisms within one "kind" can only change so much before they eventually become a different "kind".

To accept micro-evolution and deny macro-level evolution, is not very logical.
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 7:48:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Evolution is when new structures are created than aid survival.

That's what the theory says, but the evidence doesn't point to a survival-of-the-fittest selection process very clearly based on genetic diversity (it should decrease over time rather than increase), specific fossil record findings, and even inconsistencies in the theory itself.

Keep in mind that in order for "survival of the fittest" to hold up, theorist will have to show that every single tiny change would resort in higher survival probability, which would include things like lumps becoming limbs, etc...

It's because of this, of course, that there's a selection process. Now, for microevolution involving single celled organisms, we can see this in action as a "survival of the fittest" type of deal. This can happen on short time scales because:

They may be simpler but they are still amazingly complex. Also small changes in the human genetic code can have huge consequences.

True, but many more changes in the genetic codes of smaller creatures will result in a difference. Among the alterations that do absolutely nothing being far larger in multicellular organisms (genetic junk), there are also changes like size, length, amount, and color of body hair, length of fingernails. Only rarely do we get huge changes.

That is a possibility but we already know that evolution happens from the fossil record.

We know evolution happens, but there's no proof that it's a result of tiny changes, or one huge change all at once.

If you want something to illustrate how major changes happen, I welcome anyone on this site to download a program called Evolve 4.0.

In this program, each creature is given a genetic code of up to 10,000 members I believe. Each member represents an activity that the particular cell can perform. Within each member, you receive a lot of genetic junk that does absolutely nothing for it. But, it takes only one command to activate tat junk so what does nothing gives you a gigantic change.

This is what I believe in the case of evolution, also called Punctuated Equilibrium where changes happen over hundreds and thousands of years instead of millions.

Reproduction does not erase tiny mutations. That mutation has a 50% chance of being expressed in any given child and if an organism has many children it will likely be expressed. Also we have seem beneficial adaptations take over a population.

It's not always 50%, depends on trait dominance.

We have seen beneficial traits take over a population, but we've never seen this as a result of a genetic mutation. It' like breeding dogs and cats. You aren't mutating genes when you create a particular breed, you are simply selecting traits. There is a big difference in that the traits can be hidden once more in several generations of rthose animals in the wild.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 7:56:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/10/2012 6:16:08 PM, cbrhawk1 wrote:





It's because of this, of course, that there's a selection process. Now, for microevolution involving single celled organisms, we can see this in action as a "survival of the fittest" type of deal. This can happen on short time scales because:

(1) there are countless trillions of single celled organisms
(2) They have fewer parts, so small changes can have huge consequences
(3) They are not dependent on as much structure, so fewer changes would eliminate the ell's ability to grow and reproduce
(4) Because they are so small, groups become isolated from one another combined with rapid reproductive cycles, changes can envelop a population rapidy

While evolution may occur faster in microorganisms, it may still occur in animals. These factors increase the speed of evolution, but evolution still can occur in animals.

The problem with micro evolution is when you try to use it on larger animals. Since evolution is not a definition in nature, and is just a result of life and the selection process used, there's no telling if micro evolution can lead to macro evolution since tiny changes may just be nulliified as the generations after that change progress being as animals don't have particularly short reproductive cycles and aren't as geographically isolated as micro organism.

Yes, I agree changes may be nullified. There is a greater chance of nullification in animals than microorganisms, it will not always be nullified. The greater the chance of nullification, the slower the species evolves, but it is always possible to move forward. Since it is always possible, that the species countinues changing ( no nullification), macro is possible.

Furthermore, it does not seem like there would be a high probability of "going back". For this to happen, an advantage would have to become a disadvantage. For example, smart monkeys survive more and reproduce more. Monkeys become smarter. In order to go back stupider monkeys would have to survive and reproduce more. While there may be examples of advantages becoming disadvantages, it does not seem to generally be the case.

That's not necessarily true. Not all changes are even advantages. In order for micro evolution in large animals to apply, it would have to a benefit large enough to not be cancelled out by reproduction with animals without that tiny mutation.

Yeah, the last biology class I took was in grade 10, so I probably am not qualified to calculate the probability of nullification. The important concept is a countinuous change is always possible, therefore macro is always possible.
In short, evolution seems to be a continuous process. Even if changes can reverse micro-evolution, it still can lead to larger changes.

The evidence doesn't agree that evolution is continuous and gradual. It seems o show more abrupt changes than gradual ones. Whether that is due to a simply incomlete fossil record, we don't know.

Yes, evolution does not have to be gradual. A species may go through a big change, then not change again for 100,000 years. But it is countinuos. Even if the evolution of a speacies plateaus for 1,000,000 years, the speacies can still always countinue changing. The evolution may stop for a while. But eventually a change can always occur. There is always the possibility of a speacies moving forward. So, macro is always possible.

As I said, we would have to perform an experiment that lasted thousands, if not milions of years to know for sure.

We do not have to perform an experiment. We know small changes are possible. If we did an experiment, many small changes happening (macro-evolution) is a possible outcome. It may only happen 1% of the time. But it is a possibility.

Furthermore, macroevolution is the only known possibility, as to how species changed. We know humans did not exist a long long time ago, and monkeys existed a long long time ago. Because, it is possible that monkeys changed into humans, it must be accepted. There is no need to believe in something supernatural, when there is known possibility. Even if there is no known possibility, there still is no reason to believe in something supernatural.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 8:24:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/10/2012 7:34:47 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/10/2012 6:09:17 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 5/10/2012 3:35:53 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
I have heard that some people believe in micro-evolution, but not macro-evolution. I do not understand this. Micro-evolution is a small change over a small time. Macro-evolution is a large change over a large amount of time. If someone believes that small changes can occur over a short amount of time, then they must believe that more small changes can happen as the length of time is increased. These many small changes will result in one big change. It seems that if someone believes micro-evolution can happen they must believe that macro-evolution can happen. To me, believing in micro but not macro is like saying "I believe an oak tree seed can sprout into a plant, but it will never grow into giant tree".

If there is anyone that believes micro-evolution can happen but not macro I would be really interested in hearing your opinion, and trying to understand your point of view. I have never really understood this position.Thanks!

Micro and Macro are very different concepts. Quickly summarized:

Micro is natural selection. This has been used by farmers for several millenia.
The agreement that changes occur within 'kinds'.


Macro evolution is the idea that an amoeba can one day become an elephant.
The idea that changes occur outside of kinds.

Well, organisms within one "kind" can only change so much before they eventually become a different "kind".

To accept micro-evolution and deny macro-level evolution, is not very logical.

It is pure speculation that there is change from Kind to another Kind. That is the point.
Micro recognizes natural selection as a reality and 'Kinds' change. Complaining they are not logical is pointless.

Additionally, to claim it is not logical, is to ignore the evidence that serves as proof against Macro evolutionary models.

The statement is oozing with bias. Care to rephrase?
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 9:07:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/10/2012 7:48:09 PM, cbrhawk1 wrote:

That's what the theory says, but the evidence doesn't point to a survival-of-the-fittest selection process very clearly based on genetic diversity (it should decrease over time rather than increase), specific fossil record findings, and even inconsistencies in the theory itself.

Yes, natural selection removes genes from the gene pool. However, mutations add them to the gene pool so things balance out.

Keep in mind that in order for "survival of the fittest" to hold up, theorist will have to show that every single tiny change would resort in higher survival probability, which would include things like lumps becoming limbs, etc...

No they wouldn't. Many tiny changes are actually neutral which is why they are called neutral mutations. However many changes are not neutral, thus we have natural selection.

True, but many more changes in the genetic codes of smaller creatures will result in a difference. Among the alterations that do absolutely nothing being far larger in multicellular organisms (genetic junk), there are also changes like size, length, amount, and color of body hair, length of fingernails. Only rarely do we get huge changes.

Well, larger organisms have more parts to them which is actually more genetic material for mutations to tweak.

We know evolution happens, but there's no proof that it's a result of tiny changes, or one huge change all at once.

Science is not about proof, it is about evidence and testing the predictions of theories.

In this program, each creature is given a genetic code of up to 10,000 members I believe. Each member represents an activity that the particular cell can perform. Within each member, you receive a lot of genetic junk that does absolutely nothing for it. But, it takes only one command to activate tat junk so what does nothing gives you a gigantic change.

This is what I believe in the case of evolution, also called Punctuated Equilibrium where changes happen over hundreds and thousands of years instead of millions.

Well, I have a program called human evolution. In this process we see a gradual increase in brain size over time over millions of years.

It's not always 50%, depends on trait dominance.

Ok. But that genetic material is sitting there waiting to be expressed down the line.

We have seen beneficial traits take over a population, but we've never seen this as a result of a genetic mutation.

How do you know this? Did you go out and look at the scientific material?
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 9:12:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago

It is pure speculation that there is change from Kind to another Kind. That is the point.
Micro recognizes natural selection as a reality and 'Kinds' change. Complaining they are not logical is pointless.

Additionally, to claim it is not logical, is to ignore the evidence that serves as proof against Macro evolutionary models.

The statement is oozing with bias. Care to rephrase?

Let me rephrase.

1. Small can occur over a small amount of time

2. Many small changes result in a big change

3. Over a large enough time, a big change can occur

This is the general argument. It is sound and valid. If someone believes in (1.), they must believe in 3. I am not arguing that macro-evolution happened, rather that it is possible.

However, furthermore I would argue, that since macro-evolution is the only known possibility about how species came to be that did not exist long long ago, it should be believed.
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 10:09:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Yes, natural selection removes genes from the gene pool. However, mutations add them to the gene pool so things balance out.

If you look at any computer simulation that uses genetic algorithms based on natural selection, it goes against this logic in that genetic diversity decreases as a solution is reached. Once a solution is released, that solution is only refined, and any population member that doesn't share the solution either gets wiped out or merges with the solution (the most survivable product) You don't end up with creatures as diverse as turtles and whales, mosquitos and elephants.

Note that genetic algorithms typically use a mutation of around 2%. The mutation rate proposed for evolution is much, much smaller than that.

No they wouldn't. Many tiny changes are actually neutral which is why they are called neutral mutations. However many changes are not neutral, thus we have natural selection.

If the changes in between the start and end point are neutral, then how would they increase toward their target with given time? The theory behind survival of the fittest is that each tiny change makes the creature more likely to survive, ad therefore spreads around the population. If the change is neutral, there is no way that the change can be amplified. It would just blend in with the population along with other micro changes that would occur. U

Well, larger organisms have more parts to them which is actually more genetic material for mutations to tweak.

With more genetic junk as well, and with fewer and fewer points of meaningful change along the DNA molecule.

Science is not about proof, it is about evidence and testing the predictions of theories.

Proof, evidence, whatever word you want to use for the particular sentence, science hasn't come up with it and they haven't predicted

Well, I have a program called human evolution. In this process we see a gradual increase in brain size over time over millions of years.

Despite our brain size, we had a tough time surviving until God showed himself to us where we suddenly start building huge cities and connecting with one another. In factup until extremely recently, we were hardly a successful species. I don't think we even reached 1 million people in the world, according to palentolgists, until just after the last ice age.

On the record, we're very lucky we weren't wiped out.

The assumption that we are where we are because of brain size is simply false. We are where we are because of superior language and social kills, which allows us to pass on unprecedented information to the next generation. Yeah, a big brain allows those things to happen, but there are creatures with bigger brains than us that are unsuccessful because of lack of language.

It has nothing to do with survival of the fittest.

Ok. But that genetic material is sitting there waiting to be expressed down the line.

Most of it only to be thrown in the endless genetic junk piles we have.

How do you know this? Did you go out and look at the scientific material?

I'd like to see the scientifically verified evidence for small, sustained changes leading to large changes based on genetic mutation. I haven't seen it yet,and I don't think it's possible. But, if you have something, I'd like to see it.

But, I still content that any changes seen are a result of breeding selection.

Take all of the breeds of dog, and put them in the same establishment. Those that decide to breed and not kill each other, within a few generations, will become wolf like once more, as the traits once again mix and become individually minor.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 10:13:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Let me rephrase.

1. Small can occur over a small amount of time

2. Many small changes result in a big change

3. Over a large enough time, a big change can occur

This is the general argument. It is sound and valid. If someone believes in (1.), they must believe in 3. I am not arguing that macro-evolution happened, rather that it is possible.

However, furthermore I would argue, that since macro-evolution is the only known possibility about how species came to be that did not exist long long ago, it should be believed.

The problem with the argument is that changes in the genetic code will always amplify, given random mutation, that can't e assumed. Each tiny change would have to have a noticable impact to increase survivability. A bump, for example, would have to increase survivability until it became a limb, and the ilimb before smaller appendages

It's a good idea to list the possibility of something, because I agree that it is possible, but the work will never be done to a satisfactory level when talking about this.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2012 7:28:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/10/2012 4:49:37 PM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
Oh, so you concede that small evolutionary changes can aggregate into large ones but that there is some, as yet unknown, proccess which inhibits this from happening?

I'm simply saying that micro evolution does not prove macro evolution.

It does, unless there is some process that somehow prevents small changes from aggregating into large ones.

They are two completely different things.

No, they aren't.

You don't grow a horn or a limb by changing the structure of individual cells (not talking about DNA here). You do it by changing how the cells are arranged.

Both the structure and arrangement of cells are guided by DNA.


If micro evolution can lead to the larger changes, then it must assume that the same randomness that brought the changes would also not be able to reverse it or render it meaningless.

Not at all. It is known that whatever mutations can do, they can undo. Mutations can add information, and they can subtract information. They can alter information in one direction and they can alter it in another.

Now, if you want to argue that mutations can add enough information to produce large scale changes but simply haven't due to a relatively equal number of mutations that have removed said information, then I'd like you to state that explicitly.


That's why, again, in order to prove he Theory of Evolution as it relates to how larger creatures evolved, experimentation is required over said large time scales.

No it isn't.
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2012 7:38:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
It does, unless there is some process that somehow prevents small changes from aggregating into large ones.

Something we don't know, and has never been shown in a large creature.

You don't grow a horn or a limb by changing the structure of individual cells (not talking about DNA here). You do it by changing how the cells are arranged.

Both the structure and arrangement of cells are guided by DNA.

I'm talking about changes in individual cell structure not related to DNA. It's easy to, for example, change the number of gulgibodies(sp) in a cell and the cell still function.

It's a lot harder to provide meaningful change to larger animals, and for such changes to accumulate, and there's no science to back up that this is how it happens.

Not at all. It is known that whatever mutations can do, they can undo. Mutations can add information, and they can subtract information. They can alter information in one direction and they can alter it in another.

Now, if you want to argue that mutations can add enough information to produce large scale changes but simply haven't due to a relatively equal number of mutations that have removed said information, then I'd like you to state that explicitly.

I'm not going to say that microevlution has not ever happened, or that it can't happen. I'm just saying that there is no scientific evidence that these small scale changes in single celled organisms can transfer into larger animals and accumulate enough to produce things like limbs, eyeballs, and other complex structures.

No it isn't.

So, the Theory of Evolution is immune to h Scientific Method?
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2012 8:06:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/11/2012 7:38:23 AM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
It does, unless there is some process that somehow prevents small changes from aggregating into large ones.

Something we don't know, and has never been shown in a large creature.

Exactly. No such process has never been shown. Since there is no known process by which small changes aren't prevented into becoming bigger ones, the objection against macroevolution evaporates.


You don't grow a horn or a limb by changing the structure of individual cells (not talking about DNA here). You do it by changing how the cells are arranged.

Both the structure and arrangement of cells are guided by DNA.

I'm talking about changes in individual cell structure not related to DNA. It's easy to, for example, change the number of gulgibodies(sp) in a cell and the cell still function.

Ok, so what is your point here vis-a-vis evolution?


It's a lot harder to provide meaningful change to larger animals, and for such changes to accumulate, and there's no science to back up that this is how it happens.

There is plenty of science to back up how this happens.



Not at all. It is known that whatever mutations can do, they can undo. Mutations can add information, and they can subtract information. They can alter information in one direction and they can alter it in another.

Now, if you want to argue that mutations can add enough information to produce large scale changes but simply haven't due to a relatively equal number of mutations that have removed said information, then I'd like you to state that explicitly.

I'm not going to say that microevlution has not ever happened, or that it can't happen.

I'm not talking about "micro" evolution. I'm talking about "macro" evolution.

I'm just saying that there is no scientific evidence that these small scale changes in single celled organisms can transfer into larger animals and accumulate enough to produce things like limbs, eyeballs, and other complex structures.

http://www.talkorigins.org...
http://www.talkorigins.org...
http://www.talkorigins.org...
http://www.talkorigins.org...
http://www.talkorigins.org...
http://www.talkorigins.org...


No it isn't.

So, the Theory of Evolution is immune to h Scientific Method?

The scientific method doesn't require the type of experimentation you are demanding.
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2012 9:04:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/11/2012 8:06:57 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/11/2012 7:38:23 AM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
It does, unless there is some process that somehow prevents small changes from aggregating into large ones.

Something we don't know, and has never been shown in a large creature.

Exactly. No such process has never been shown. Since there is no known process by which small changes aren't prevented into becoming bigger ones, the objection against macroevolution evaporates.

Just because no process has been shown doesn't mean that microevolution proves that small changes do lead to larger ones.

The burden of proof is on the scientists to show the translation, how it takes place, and at what rate.

I'm not talking about "micro" evolution. I'm talking about "macro" evolution.

My apologies. I'm talking about microevolution leading to macroevolution.

I'm just saying that there is no scientific evidence that these small scale changes in single celled organisms can transfer into larger animals and accumulate enough to produce things like limbs, eyeballs, and other complex structures.

http://www.talkorigins.org...

I'm not denying macroevolution. I'm simply saying here is no proof that it is a result of many microevolutions.

As far as their reference to speiation:
None of these are due to genetic mutations at the DNA level.

Also, "speciation" is broader than you might think. All it takes to form the definition of a new species is for it to be isolated from the previous species in terms of reproduction. It would include the inability for the previous to reproduce with the former, as happened with the London mosquito if I'm not mistaken.

http://www.talkorigins.org...
Article makes the leap of saying micro and macro evolution are controlled by the same pocesses, using the argument to validate the argument itself. Once again, includes speciation that is not due to genetic mutation as is proposed by evolutionary theories

article
Supermacroevolution is harder to observe directly. However, there is not the slightest bit of evidence that it requires anything but microevolution.

This is using the absence of disproof of the negative as a proof of the positive, something that simply can't be applied to science. There is no evidence that macro or supermacroevolution does use microevolution when it comes to genetic mutations.

http://www.talkorigins.org...
This talking points responce, once again, resorts to the negative of evidence as evidencefor the positive that large scale changes come from small scale. We don't even have a link based on hard evidence, so the discussion of barriers to the process vs the process isn't particularly valid, and the barrier of random variability (i.e. change not just going in one direction) can't easily be explained away for larger changes than the cellular level.

Also, this response has no references, so this is the pure opinion of the author.

http://www.talkorigins.org...

Part 1 uses the fossil record as secondary evidence for the link between microevolution and macroevolution. Nothing in the fossil record suggests tiny, gradual changes. Instead, we see almost compete constancy followed by rapid large change. There is no bridge between microevolution and macroevolution from this point.

Part 2 simply a science lesson on the theory that I'm sure the person asking already knows. I can start a whole thread on the inconsistencies of survival of the fittest, and I think I argue it enough in these threads as it is. Safe to say, though, that survival of the fittest doesn't require there to be a bridge between microevolution and macroevolution.

http://www.talkorigins.org...
The interesting quote here is this, which actually shows evidence that microevolution isn't required for macroevolution:

article
An arbitrary genetic sequence can evolve to acquire functionality (Hayashi et al. 2003).

This shows that changes don't have to be gradual and slow, but can occur by turning "genetic junk" into a function, meaning that what was once meaningless now tells the body to produce a limb, fin, or makes it able to break down different compounds.

http://www.talkorigins.org...

I have nothing to say about this one. It was never a contention and doesn't deal with smaller changes leading to larger changes. No new body parts or functions have formed as a result of small, gradual changes in our observations.



No it isn't.

So, the Theory of Evolution is immune to h Scientific Method?

The scientific method doesn't require the type of experimentation you are demanding.

I figured science was about direct, empirical evidence to back up the theories. I guess science is about indirect evidence, logical reasoning, and subjective analysis based on no direct data then?
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman