Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Micro- vis-à-vis Macro-Evolution

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
    So you're ok with non-human "Darwinian" evolution?

    Is there a difference between evolution and "Darwinian evolution"? Do you mean the understanding of evolution before the modern synthesis of natural selection and molecular genetics?

    K54
    Darwin; that's the one that says we have common ancestor with the rest of creatures. Most recent with other apes, further back, with all the other primates, go back more, with all the other mammals, and so on and so forth. People call that 'Evolution'. Popular conception, the parade picture monkey to modern man, but cladistic chart probably more honest approach.

    and then . the other "Evolution" , the observed (and sometimes directed) industrial application, observable process:
    "Current challenges and promises of white biotechnology encourage protein engineers to use a directed evolution approach to generate novel and useful biocatalysts for various sets of applications. Different methods of enzyme engineering have been used in the past in an attempt to produce enzymes with improved functions and properties"
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22985113

    "...In a process called “directed evolution” scientists re-enact natural evolution in the laboratory: they iteratively mutate an enzyme and select for mutants with the desired feature. Within months, directed evolution can increase an enzyme’s ability to catalyze a particular reaction by as much as 1000-fold—and sometimes even beyond. “In the past five years alone, there have been over 60 publications containing examples of directed evolution of enzymes for industrial processes,” says Gert Kiss, PhD, a postdoc at Stanford University, who collaborates closely with David Baker, PhD, professor of biochemistry at the University of Washington and a pioneer in directed enzyme evolution..."
    http://biomedicalcomputationreview.o...cted-evolution

    yeah, that second one is a fact.

    and its used to imply the first one has been proved.
    When you cite industrial application "evolution" and say, "see, evolution is both a theory and a fact", I think you (not just you, but Darwinists IN GENERAL, know that your listener will go away thinking we have a non human ape ancestor, or share a non human common ancestor with other animals.
    To say that crony capitalism is not true/free market capitalism, is like saying a grand slam is not true baseball, or like saying scoring a touchdown is not true American football ...Stefan Mykhaylo D

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by phank View Post
      Because evolution does not create. It merely shuffles. All baramins were created during the first six days, though it has happened that some of them have gone extinct. No new ones can appear without the Creator bringing them (Wording them? Poofing them?) into existence.

      The implications of the baramin approach may not be obvious at first. Because new baramins can't evolve, "macroevolution" can ONLY mean the morphing of one baramin into another - dogs into cats, for example. And this can't happen because it would require a half-dog, half-cat, which is not a chimera which could survive. Similarly dinosaurs could not evolve into birds, because this would entail half-wings which would be functionally useless. Also, because origin of life (and origin of baramins, and origins of the universe) are all part of the same atomic creation event, the distinctions between them are regarded as artificial and moot. The origin of all baramins WAS the origin of all life, so these are the same thing.
      That's the best explanation I've ever heard for anti-evolution recalcitrance! They basically "define" an unknowable notion (really an axiom) and presuppose this undefined and unknowable notion is conceptualized as something like a jigsaw puzzle of pairwise disjoint "baramins".

      How convenient. Axiomatic categories with no definition and no way of testing or researching. And all fabricated nonsense to avoid accepting the notion of biological evolution.

      I suppose the "baramin" concept allows one to accept deep time without accepting evolution.

      I'd love to see more discussion on this, especially with input from our board YEC expert.

      K54

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by jordanriver View Post
        Darwin; that's the one that says we have common ancestor with the rest of creatures. Most recent with other apes, further back, with all the other primates, go back more, with all the other mammals, and so on and so forth. People call that 'Evolution'. Popular conception, the parade picture monkey to modern man, but cladistic chart probably more honest approach.

        and then . the other "Evolution" , the observed (and sometimes directed) industrial application, observable process:

        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22985113


        http://biomedicalcomputationreview.o...cted-evolution

        yeah, that second one is a fact.

        and its used to imply the first one has been proved.
        When you cite industrial application "evolution" and say, "see, evolution is both a theory and a fact", I think you (not just you, but Darwinists IN GENERAL, know that your listener will go away thinking we have a non human ape ancestor, or share a non human common ancestor with other animals.
        Oh, OK -- I thought you opposed only HUMAN "Darwinian Evolution."

        I don't think anti-evolutionists will EVER go away, regardless of what anyone says.

        But if you want to exclude that humans have non-human ancestors, then you are still are stuck with the task of explaining the vast majority of the rock and fossil record. I.e., evolution spanning a time interval over 1,000 times longer than the (according to not just YOU, but all anti-evolutionists, non-existing) record of Hominid evolution.

        As an analogy, you've discarded the top inch of water from an 80-foot deep lake.

        Now you limit evolution to what can be observed in real time -- mostly artificial selection and some small naturally-occurring phenotype changes, or "micro-evolution". Farm plants and animals and bio-medical stuff...

        But that doesn't address my question. What barrier is there to prevent micro-evolution from becoming macro-evolution?

        Is it the amount of time required?

        K54
        Last edited by klaus54; 08-10-2014, 09:46 PM.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
          Oh, OK -- I thought you opposed only HUMAN "Darwinian Evolution." ........

          K54
          huh?
          that part of your reply doesn't make any sense as to what I posted that time.
          To say that crony capitalism is not true/free market capitalism, is like saying a grand slam is not true baseball, or like saying scoring a touchdown is not true American football ...Stefan Mykhaylo D

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by jordanriver View Post
            huh?
            that part of your reply doesn't make any sense as to what I posted that time.
            The Rubicon you indicated in your first post was

            Originally posted by JR, first page
            Darwinian HUMAN Evolution

            ...speaking for myself that is
            Then in a later post you agreed with the fact of microevolution - bio-engineering and that jazz.

            So if HUMAN Darwinian evolution is not the micro/macro boundary, then what is?

            K54

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
              The Rubicon you indicated in your first post was



              Then in a later post you agreed with the fact of microevolution - bio-engineering and that jazz.

              So if HUMAN Darwinian evolution is not the micro/macro boundary, then what is?

              K54
              ?
              why not agree with the evolution that is known to be real, the "bio-engineering and that jazz" ?

              That was my attempt to demonstrate that there are TWO different "evolutions" , (at least 2)

              and my attempt to point out , how, at least in my experience, how Darwinists use the directed part to infer their unproven claim (Darwin's common ancestor theory)

              ok, got that explained i think.

              ok SUBJECT CHANGE
              You asked what is micro/macro boundary , so I now try explain with IMHO

              IMHO, macro is so many small changes that the morphology causes new species (speciation) OR, at least the appearance that one version is a different species than other, perhaps because they cannot mate anymore?
              I always wondered, if some alien Darwinist visited Earth, would think Great Danes and Chihuahua were different species.


              ok, moving on, IMHO, (my take, so don't blame other Bible believers because of what I might think) ..."MICRO"
              I think micro is the known changes, like the bio-engineering directed lab-scenario, but not just lab-scenario, but also other instances of population being threatened. So IMHO, there is a PROGRAM, (some trait already there) that causes the members of threatened species' genomes to increase rate of mutations. Been known that there is up to million-fold increase in rate, TO HURRY UP AND CREATE IMMUNE SURVIVOR.
              And not just DNA mutations, but also epigenetic changes to find adaption to new situation. All that has to do is switch on or off genes that already there.
              And IMHO, this is MICRO because its there to PRESERVE POPULATIONS for survival, IOW, preserve existence of species.

              not always successful, species go extinct, still dangerous world.


              hmmm
              .....so, that also answers another of your questions
              "what barrier is there to prevent micro-evolution from becoming macro-evolution, ...is it the amount of time required?"
              as you can see, why would I think time is a problem, when you got million-fold rate increases for stress-induced mutagenesis, and epigenetics too, if micro can become macro, I wouldn't have to use the lack of time excuse.
              To say that crony capitalism is not true/free market capitalism, is like saying a grand slam is not true baseball, or like saying scoring a touchdown is not true American football ...Stefan Mykhaylo D

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by jordanriver View Post
                ?
                why not agree with the evolution that is known to be real, the "bio-engineering and that jazz" ?

                That was my attempt to demonstrate that there are TWO different "evolutions" , (at least 2)

                and my attempt to point out , how, at least in my experience, how Darwinists use the directed part to infer their unproven claim (Darwin's common ancestor theory)

                ok, got that explained i think.

                ok SUBJECT CHANGE
                You asked what is micro/macro boundary , so I now try explain with IMHO

                IMHO, macro is so many small changes that the morphology causes new species (speciation) OR, at least the appearance that one version is a different species than other, perhaps because they cannot mate anymore?
                I always wondered, if some alien Darwinist visited Earth, would think Great Danes and Chihuahua were different species.


                ok, moving on, IMHO, (my take, so don't blame other Bible believers because of what I might think) ..."MICRO"
                I think micro is the known changes, like the bio-engineering directed lab-scenario, but not just lab-scenario, but also other instances of population being threatened. So IMHO, there is a PROGRAM, (some trait already there) that causes the members of threatened species' genomes to increase rate of mutations. Been known that there is up to million-fold increase in rate, TO HURRY UP AND CREATE IMMUNE SURVIVOR.
                And not just DNA mutations, but also epigenetic changes to find adaption to new situation. All that has to do is switch on or off genes that already there.
                And IMHO, this is MICRO because its there to PRESERVE POPULATIONS for survival, IOW, preserve existence of species.

                not always successful, species go extinct, still dangerous world.


                hmmm
                .....so, that also answers another of your questions

                as you can see, why would I think time is a problem, when you got million-fold rate increases for stress-induced mutagenesis, and epigenetics too, if micro can become macro, I wouldn't have to use the lack of time excuse.
                Since the mechanisms (mutations + genetic drift + natural selection) are the same for micro and macro, I still don't see where you answered the question of the boundary between them. Used a lot of words and thrashing around but no answer.

                At what taxonomic level is the boundary? All living things have the same genetic "alphabet". What's to prevent speciation or separation of genera or classes, etc.?

                Epigenetics does affect probability of survival to reproductive age, but that happens from generation to generation. It has nothing to do with the distinction between micro and macro.

                Does any other "macro-evolutionist" see what JR is trying to get across? He/she has me flummoxed.

                K54

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                  Since the mechanisms (mutations + genetic drift + natural selection) are the same for micro and macro, I still don't see where you answered the question of the boundary between them. Used a lot of words and thrashing around but no answer.

                  At what taxonomic level is the boundary? All living things have the same genetic "alphabet". What's to prevent speciation or separation of genera or classes, etc.?

                  Epigenetics does affect probability of survival to reproductive age, but that happens from generation to generation. It has nothing to do with the distinction between micro and macro.

                  Does any other "macro-evolutionist" see what JR is trying to get across? He/she has me flummoxed.

                  K54
                  the boundary ,
                  I guess the boundary is whatever whoever is in charge decides one animal shaped this way must be a different "species" from some other animal shaped that way.

                  I can't stop you if you get a biology text published and declare german shepherds and Labradors and bulldogs and dachsunds are now different species.

                  I don't set that boundary.

                  I am not the one who says, since Nariokotome boy and 'the hobbit' have a different morphology from each other and us, there must be 3 different 'species' there, or because whatever volcanic ash they wanderered into decides their species.

                  Look I think we just have a difference of opinion of what genetic drift and natural selection accomplish..
                  You say the result is various species.
                  I say the action preserves the species , with new adaptable morphologies and immunities.
                  To say that crony capitalism is not true/free market capitalism, is like saying a grand slam is not true baseball, or like saying scoring a touchdown is not true American football ...Stefan Mykhaylo D

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by jordanriver View Post
                    the boundary ,
                    I guess the boundary is whatever whoever is in charge decides one animal shaped this way must be a different "species" from some other animal shaped that way.
                    OK, except that nobody is in charge, and morphology (the animal's shape) is a relatively minor factor.

                    I can't stop you if you get a biology text published and declare german shepherds and Labradors and bulldogs and dachsunds are now different species.
                    Why would anyone want to do that?

                    I don't set that boundary.
                    The question really is whether there ARE any such boundaries, and if there are, what they might be. Not who set them.

                    I am not the one who says, since Nariokotome boy and 'the hobbit' have a different morphology from each other and us, there must be 3 different 'species' there, or because whatever volcanic ash they wanderered into decides their species.
                    Nobody else is saying this either.

                    Look I think we just have a difference of opinion of what genetic drift and natural selection accomplish..
                    You say the result is various species.
                    I say the action preserves the species , with new adaptable morphologies and immunities.
                    Since genetic drift and natural selection have, over time, diverged rather widely, you seem to be saying that elephants and sponges and oak trees and e. coli are actually all the same "preserved" species. This is a rather broad category which has some practical limitations, not least being it's not very useful. Other than that, however, it's quite clever because it lumps all of these various shapes into a single species whose members differ only, you know, in terms of shape, behavior, interbreeding, genetic structure, past history, little things like that. It's microevolution all the way down.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by jordanriver View Post
                      the boundary ,
                      I guess the boundary is whatever whoever is in charge decides one animal shaped this way must be a different "species" from some other animal shaped that way.

                      I can't stop you if you get a biology text published and declare german shepherds and Labradors and bulldogs and dachsunds are now different species.

                      I don't set that boundary.

                      I am not the one who says, since Nariokotome boy and 'the hobbit' have a different morphology from each other and us, there must be 3 different 'species' there, or because whatever volcanic ash they wanderered into decides their species.

                      Look I think we just have a difference of opinion of what genetic drift and natural selection accomplish..
                      You say the result is various species.
                      I say the action preserves the species , with new adaptable morphologies and immunities.
                      If a species is adapted to a niche and the environment changes little, then random mutation and natural selection tend to preserve the species. The average lifespan of any vertebrate species is on the order of 10 million years.

                      But what happens with the species when the niche closes and others open due to changing environmental conditions? (Long-term plate tectonics, short-term volcanic activity, meteor impact, droughts or floods, invasion by predators or organisms with similar niche? Then natural selection will act on the available genetics in the community and survival probabilities will change leading to changes in gene frequencies. The species in the first sentence will likely become extinct.

                      The boundaries of macro-evolution aren't "decided" by anyone in the mainstream community because there ARE NONE. Anti-evolutionists believe there ARE boundaries, and I'm asking what THOSE ARE.

                      K54
                      Last edited by klaus54; 08-11-2014, 06:35 PM. Reason: bunch of typos

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by phank View Post
                        OK, except that nobody is in charge, and morphology (the animal's shape) is a relatively minor factor.

                        Why would anyone want to do that?

                        The question really is whether there ARE any such boundaries, and if there are, what they might be. Not who set them.

                        Nobody else is saying this either.
                        .
                        oh I dunno about that. They used to, the "splitters' at least. The "lumpers" resisted and had their 'single-species' hypothesis.
                        But that was back in the good ole days.
                        I don't know if you're familiar with the history.


                        Since genetic drift and natural selection have, over time, diverged rather widely, you seem to be saying that elephants and sponges and oak trees and e. coli are actually all the same "preserved" species. This is a rather broad category which has some practical limitations, not least being it's not very useful. Other than that, however, it's quite clever because it lumps all of these various shapes into a single species whose members differ only, you know, in terms of shape, behavior, interbreeding, genetic structure, past history, little things like that. It's microevolution all the way down
                        oh come on now.
                        Don't be such an 'all or nothing' kind of guy.
                        ...you seem to be saying that if I'm not going to let you call variation different species every time , then I am not allowed to call anything different species, even to the extreme extent of e. coli and elephants etc.

                        I am not limited to a SINGLE COMMON ANCESTOR restriction.
                        To say that crony capitalism is not true/free market capitalism, is like saying a grand slam is not true baseball, or like saying scoring a touchdown is not true American football ...Stefan Mykhaylo D

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by jordanriver View Post
                          oh I dunno about that. They used to, the "splitters' at least. The "lumpers" resisted and had their 'single-species' hypothesis.
                          But that was back in the good ole days.
                          I don't know if you're familiar with the history.
                          Well enough. A species is necessarily a hazy category - if it were not, evolution would be seriously handicapped. So when you have two separate interbreeding populations, and they stop interbreeding, they get split. When they resume interbreeding (if they do), they get lumped.

                          As a former avid birder, I was aware that the main list birders maintained was their USA list, and there are just about exactly 600 species of birds found in the US at one time or another. So 600 was a magic number, and those who reached it were the envy of those who had not. But as it happened, two fairly common species were the common chickadee and the black-capped chickadee. All birders had both on their lists, of course. Then some very careful observers noticed that both species seemed to be tending the same nests, and further watching showed that the black cap was nothing more than immature coloration. So the lumpers combined them, since they were in fact all one population. And a LOT of people fell to 599 species on their life lists. It was kind of funny.


                          oh come on now.
                          Don't be such an 'all or nothing' kind of guy.
                          ...you seem to be saying that if I'm not going to let you call variation different species every time , then I am not allowed to call anything different species, even to the extreme extent of e. coli and elephants etc.

                          I am not limited to a SINGLE COMMON ANCESTOR restriction.
                          But nature IS limited to that restriction. There are some general rules of thumb (as my story implied) about what constitutes a species. In general, species are considered different if we have two populations that do not interbreed for any reason. Note, this isn't if they CANNOT breed, simply if in nature it doesn't happen. This might be due to many things - mating rituals, pheromones, coloration, geographic separation, etc.

                          Yet speciation happens, even sympatric speciation, where one population gradually divides into two as the members of one stop breeding with members of the other. This is called a branching event, and can take up to thousands of years to complete. And of course, there can be dispute as to how little gene flow constitutes breeding isolation. Klaus spoke of ring species.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by jordanriver View Post
                            oh I dunno about that. They used to, the "splitters' at least. The "lumpers" resisted and had their 'single-species' hypothesis.
                            But that was back in the good ole days.
                            I don't know if you're familiar with the history.



                            oh come on now.
                            Don't be such an 'all or nothing' kind of guy.
                            ...you seem to be saying that if I'm not going to let you call variation different species every time , then I am not allowed to call anything different species, even to the extreme extent of e. coli and elephants etc.

                            I am not limited to a SINGLE COMMON ANCESTOR restriction.
                            SINGLE COMMON ANCESTOR of what??

                            Lumping or splitting occurs at the hazy species or occasionally the genus level.

                            So what does this have to do with a boundary between micro and macro?

                            Speciation occurs. It's even been observed in a very cases in the last hundred years. So what would happen in thousands or tens of thousands or...? What barrier would limit change over time (by definition "evolution") from giving rise to new genera or orders or...?

                            Where and what is the boundary?

                            K54

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                              SINGLE COMMON ANCESTOR of what??

                              K54
                              of all life.

                              In context I was replying to phank who answered that nature has the single common ancestor restriction.

                              Where and what is the boundary?
                              not a where or a what question.
                              I believe that is a WHEN problem.

                              I can't see why there would be any need for a boundary now. Why would there be any controversy, life already exists.

                              ...inspired by attempting to read and understand Alan Guth's 'The Inflationary Universe', a zero energy universe solution...
                              ...I offer a zero boundary answer for micro to macro.

                              It occurred to me, once all the "kinds" (vot-ever dot minns) , or "common ancestors" (however many that may be?, ....nikto ne-znayet!/nobody knows...),

                              ....then what difference does it make if they morph/speciate now
                              To say that crony capitalism is not true/free market capitalism, is like saying a grand slam is not true baseball, or like saying scoring a touchdown is not true American football ...Stefan Mykhaylo D

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by phank View Post
                                And a LOT of people fell to 599 species on their life lists. It was kind of funny.

                                .
                                I guess it would be. I like that.

                                But nature IS limited to that restriction.
                                but why?
                                if it happened once ....

                                There are some general rules of thumb (as my story implied) about what constitutes a species. In general, species are considered different if we have two populations that do not interbreed for any reason. Note, this isn't if they CANNOT breed, simply if in nature it doesn't happen. This might be due to many things - mating rituals, pheromones, coloration, geographic separation, etc.

                                Yet speciation happens, even sympatric speciation, where one population gradually divides into two as the members of one stop breeding with members of the other. This is called a branching event, and can take up to thousands of years to complete. And of course, there can be dispute as to how little gene flow constitutes breeding isolation. Klaus spoke of ring species
                                but, if "reversed direction" happens, like the talk origins horses link allows
                                http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html

                                so, if "branching event" occurs, and the 'daughter' species cannot breed with the parent one, its a new species.
                                but if reverse evolution occurs and the "two" species can interbreed again, what happens,

                                do you say , ok, now its the species it used to be

                                or what if I say, it was never a different "species" to begin with
                                Last edited by jordanriver; 08-12-2014, 03:39 AM.
                                To say that crony capitalism is not true/free market capitalism, is like saying a grand slam is not true baseball, or like saying scoring a touchdown is not true American football ...Stefan Mykhaylo D

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                135 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                47 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X