Microevolution vs. Macroevolution

[Student Nurse]

Last semester I took Microbiology. Before then I was a Christian and believed in creation, but what I studied and what I saw undoubtedly proved evolution - hence the "switchover" or "atheistic conversion" or whatever you want to call it.

I hear a lot of Christians say "the microbiological world proves microevolution" (i.e. evolution on the small scale such as bacteria adapting to new hosts/environments and incorporating plasmids into their DNA in order to become resistant to antibiotics), "but that doesn't prove macroevolution" (ie human evolution)

If this isn't true, then what does it prove to you? How can something be true on the small scale and not on the large? (give examples please)

[otseng]

OK, ok, I know evolution is a very emotional topic, but let's please avoid the name calling and personal judgements.

[Curious]

Of course, what you are missing is the evidence that small changes do accumulate.
I bet that if you read Gabriel Dover's quote in context, it means something entirely different that what you claim it does. (This technique is known as 'quote mining', and shows a lack of understanding of the subject matter).

And , considering that Francisco Ayala is the President for the Society for the Study of Evolution, you can be sure his quote is out of context too.

Mark Twain was right in that too much extrapolation leads to inaccuracies. However, evolution is not based on an excessive amount of extrapolation, because there is plenty of evidence in the form of the fossil record and the genetic record.

There is nothing to prove that small changes accumulate to produce the gross changes necessary to support the present theory of evolution. I have read this thread and find a number of posts claiming that evolution is FACT. You might be right and the theory of evolution might be correct, but it cannot be said that it is a fact because it is not. A scientific fact is data and the data can only be said to point to the theory being either correct or incorrect. That is why it is called a THEORY. You make the claim that there is fossil evidence to support the theory so what is it? How exactly does it show evolution by the mechanisms described in the present theory of evolution?

Why, yes it is a fact. Species change over time. For example, in austrailia, in response to the invasion of the exotic the Cane toad, the snake jaws are narrower
and are unable to try to eat the toad. The toad is very poisonous, and any snake eating one dies. Therefore, the snakes with larger jaws that could try to eat the toad had much less of an advantage. The same happened with the gene for
tuskless elephants. They were not under the pressure from poachers for the ivory tusks, so they had a survial/reproductive advanatage.

You are using the logical fallaciy of equivocation, and a misunderstanding of the word 'fact'. You see, there is the fact that species change, that is the fact of evolution. This is shown by the fossil record, the observations of morphology changes due to environmental pressures, and is confirmed by the genetic analsyis of comparing similar species.
As for the Theory of evolution, that is looking at the mechnisms that cause these changes to occur. The major one which was posoposed by Darwin is variation followed by natural selection. That is the simple part of the it. The modern
theory looks at the mechanisms for the variations, and what triggers that patterns of 'spurts' of evolution that we see. We have several paths of data for the conclusions we have. We even have , for a microscopic species of marine protozoa called foraminifera a set of records with no gaps between the species for the last 66 million years, showing how the species changed.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/crea ... icle3.html

Well, to start with, I do not disagree with the statement that species may change. I do have a problem however with the assumption that species changing into different species is a fact. This is assumed because of data interpretation and so is not fact. If we are talking about scientific fact, we should even say that 1+1 will equal 2 is not a fact. A fact would be that 1+1 DID equal 2 because we added 1 and 1 and measured the sum to be 2.
You say that genetic analysis confirms the veracity of evolutionary theory. Ok, tell me why it confirms it and I will tell you why it does no such thing.

[Goat]

Of course, what you are missing is the evidence that small changes do accumulate.
I bet that if you read Gabriel Dover's quote in context, it means something entirely different that what you claim it does. (This technique is known as 'quote mining', and shows a lack of understanding of the subject matter).

And , considering that Francisco Ayala is the President for the Society for the Study of Evolution, you can be sure his quote is out of context too.

Mark Twain was right in that too much extrapolation leads to inaccuracies. However, evolution is not based on an excessive amount of extrapolation, because there is plenty of evidence in the form of the fossil record and the genetic record.

There is nothing to prove that small changes accumulate to produce the gross changes necessary to support the present theory of evolution. I have read this thread and find a number of posts claiming that evolution is FACT. You might be right and the theory of evolution might be correct, but it cannot be said that it is a fact because it is not. A scientific fact is data and the data can only be said to point to the theory being either correct or incorrect. That is why it is called a THEORY. You make the claim that there is fossil evidence to support the theory so what is it? How exactly does it show evolution by the mechanisms described in the present theory of evolution?

Why, yes it is a fact. Species change over time. For example, in austrailia, in response to the invasion of the exotic the Cane toad, the snake jaws are narrower
and are unable to try to eat the toad. The toad is very poisonous, and any snake eating one dies. Therefore, the snakes with larger jaws that could try to eat the toad had much less of an advantage. The same happened with the gene for
tuskless elephants. They were not under the pressure from poachers for the ivory tusks, so they had a survial/reproductive advanatage.

You are using the logical fallaciy of equivocation, and a misunderstanding of the word 'fact'. You see, there is the fact that species change, that is the fact of evolution. This is shown by the fossil record, the observations of morphology changes due to environmental pressures, and is confirmed by the genetic analsyis of comparing similar species.
As for the Theory of evolution, that is looking at the mechnisms that cause these changes to occur. The major one which was posoposed by Darwin is variation followed by natural selection. That is the simple part of the it. The modern
theory looks at the mechanisms for the variations, and what triggers that patterns of 'spurts' of evolution that we see. We have several paths of data for the conclusions we have. We even have , for a microscopic species of marine protozoa called foraminifera a set of records with no gaps between the species for the last 66 million years, showing how the species changed.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/crea ... icle3.html

Well, to start with, I do not disagree with the statement that species may change. I do have a problem however with the assumption that species changing into different species is a fact. This is assumed because of data interpretation and so is not fact. If we are talking about scientific fact, we should even say that 1+1 will equal 2 is not a fact. A fact would be that 1+1 DID equal 2 because we added 1 and 1 and measured the sum to be 2.
You say that genetic analysis confirms the veracity of evolutionary theory. Ok, tell me why it confirms it and I will tell you why it does no such thing.

Before I go on, what is your concept of what the evolutionary theory is? What is your definition of a species. I want to know your assumptions first, so we don't play the game of equivocation.

[otseng]

I do have a problem however with the assumption that species changing into different species is a fact.

I used to think the same thing, but this is in fact false. Speciation is found in ring species. So species can evolve into another.

The real problem as I see it is how can an organism evolve novel (and beneficial) mutations. As I've argued, simple mutations are easy. But, as we get more complex, it's much more difficult. And even impossible to empirically find.

[Curious]

Before I go on, what is your concept of what the evolutionary theory is? What is your definition of a species. I want to know your assumptions first, so we don't play the game of equivocation.

This is probably a good idea at this point.
My argument is against the commonly held belief that small, random mutations leading to gross changes capable of eventually changing a single celled organism into a blue whale is proven. Lets ignore the problem of how we got the organism for the time being.
Definition of species.... this is tough because even the scientific definition doesn't marry with real world observation. Many animals classified as distinct species have been found to be able to breed.

[Curious]

I do have a problem however with the assumption that species changing into different species is a fact.

I used to think the same thing, but this is in fact false. Speciation is found in ring species. So species can evolve into another.

I will explain again why it is not a proven FACT. A scientific fact is DATA. If we were to observe a species which evolved into a different species, then this would be a FACT in the case of the observed species. Assumption, no matter how well founded, is never fact.
Another problem with speciation is the everchanging definition of the word species. Certain claims were made concerning speciation and these were shown to be incorrect. The novel solution of evolutionary biologists was the redefining of the word species. So evolutionists can now have 2 distinct species that are able to physically breed but are separated by opportunity. Ok, so a family of gorillas in San Francisco zoo are now, by definition, a separate species to a related family housed in London zoo? As for ring species, are we then to assume that Africans are a different species to Scots or indians to Swedes?
Variation within species is vast and we see this in dogs. All breeds of dog are classed as the same species but in other animals such differences are classed as speciation.
Can anyone give a definition of species that is actually consistent?

[QED]

The real problem as I see it is how can an organism evolve novel (and beneficial) mutations. As I've argued, simple mutations are easy. But, as we get more complex, it's much more difficult. And even impossible to empirically find.

Well if you draw your conclusions from your example of "random letter" changes in short words then you've omitted the ability of selection to keep hold of what works and suppress what doesn't. Don't those simple words of mine convey anything of what you claim you're looking for?

I really do hate to have to keep on drawing attention to things like Genetic Programming and Evolvable Hardware, but these truly are empirical demonstrations of how novel and beneficial mutations can "win through" to form non-trivial (i.e. apparently intelligent) designs for things. You will not succeed in dismissing them because they don't relate directly to living organisms until such time as you present a principle by which the same logic can be shown to be inapplicable.

This really ought to be a trivial matter if it is as true as you seem to think it is. Yet I have not seen a single suggestion forthcoming to show why it should be so. Therefore your assertion that it is "impossible to empirically find novel (and beneficial) mutations" does not accurately reflect the way the world actually is.

[Goat]

I do have a problem however with the assumption that species changing into different species is a fact.

I used to think the same thing, but this is in fact false. Speciation is found in ring species. So species can evolve into another.

The real problem as I see it is how can an organism evolve novel (and beneficial) mutations. As I've argued, simple mutations are easy. But, as we get more complex, it's much more difficult. And even impossible to empirically find.

Cold you give me an example of a feature that is from a 'more complex' sitations that you a 'novel and beneficial' mutation that fits your description? I don't understand what you meand a a 'complex' mutation.

You have to remember, evolution is incremental and accumulative. I would like to know what you think is a complex mutation?

[Galphanore]

I do have a problem however with the assumption that species changing into different species is a fact.

I used to think the same thing, but this is in fact false. Speciation is found in ring species. So species can evolve into another.

The real problem as I see it is how can an organism evolve novel (and beneficial) mutations. As I've argued, simple mutations are easy. But, as we get more complex, it's much more difficult. And even impossible to empirically find.

The problem is it doesn't take a major, complex change to gain a huge benefit. A little stronger fins of a fish and you have something that can swim through muddier water, put the eyes a little closer together and that same creature can see bugs on the water surface easily. Then it's a single step, detatch the fins from the head and make a "shoulder" and you have something like this guy, who could make short trips onto land and benefit from a whole new ecosystem to find food in.
[center][/center]
That creature's fossiles were found by using the predictive ability of evolution. They tried to determine what characteristics of the environment would lead to a fish becoming able to travel on land. They considered that a major factor would be that it's water home would have to be going away, so they looked for locations that would have had something like that. They came upon the canadian north, where the ponds this guy lived in were drying up, so the creatures in the water that ended up able to survive were the ones able to travel from one dying pool to another, such as it.

[otseng]

You will not succeed in dismissing them because they don't relate directly to living organisms until such time as you present a principle by which the same logic can be shown to be inapplicable.

If evolution is true, shouldn't it be a simple matter to demonstrate it in the biological world? Why only show it by principle through human devices?

And from what I gather, it is because it is not demonstratable through biological examples. When I read through Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker, this was also the same situation. The explanations he gave of evolution were all hypothetical scenarios rather than demonstrating any evidence from biology.

Using principles are fine, but if it cannot be shown to have correlation to the subject matter, then it is of little use.

I would like to know what you think is a complex mutation?

DNA mutations should result in a synthesis of a novel amino acid sequence which in turn produce novel and functional proteins. We can start with this. Are there any examples of a new protein that have evolved through mutations?