Micro / macro evolution

[Brick-top]

This has nothing to do with Religion or personal belief, so if you've got a bone to pick with someone, STFU and GTFO

If you don't know what microevolution and macroevolution are wiki has a simple explaination for them.

What are your opinions on both of these?

[EndGameOmega]

Highly relevant picture:

[Drakim]

At 3/6/08 07:18 AM, Brick-top wrote: This has nothing to do with Religion or personal belief, so if you've got a bone to pick with someone, STFU and GTFO

If you don't know what microevolution and macroevolution are wiki has a simple explaination for them.

What are your opinions on both of these?

Individuals cannot breed when their DNA becomes too diffrent, and will split off into diffrent species.

Microevolution causes DNA to change.

There is no magical barrier that keeps microevolution from changing the DNA too much.

What more is there to it?

[Elfer]

Today I was driving to the grocery store, but then I realized that I would never get there, because even though I had driven my car the first third of the way there, the grocery store was just too far away for me to understand how I could continue to drive all the way there.

[Memorize]

At 3/6/08 01:37 PM, Elfer wrote: Today I was driving to the grocery store, but then I realized that I would never get there, because even though I had driven my car the first third of the way there, the grocery store was just too far away for me to understand how I could continue to drive all the way there.

Except that you know where the grocery store is. The grocery store is existing in the same time you are. And unless the road suddenly went through massive changes and split into many seperate directions, you'll find the store.

[SmilezRoyale]

I beleive that both micro and macro evolution are the means by which species change.

I also beleive that evolution is the means by which ideas evolve. Essentially, the fatter we become; the more altruistic we have the capacity to become.

[Al6200]

Microevolution and macroevolution AREN'T REAL CONCEPTS, they're buzzwords created by the CREATIONIST movement in order to selectively draw from the theory of evolution.

Many creationists would claim that they believe in micro, but not macro, and try to say

However, what they fail to comprehend is that the existence of "microevolution" logically leads to the existence of "macroevolution", since a series of small changes may appear like small changes on a short time frame - but large changes on a longer time frame Think about it. If I proved that humanity tends to slowly get more advanced, and then you said: "Well, that's micro-advance. I believe in that, but I still don't believe that humans can advance a significant amount, macro-advance".

But guess what, macroevolution and microevolution don't exist. There's just evolution, and on a short time frame it leads to small changes and on a large time frame it leads to large changes. It's one, single, indistinguishable process.

[SolInvictus]

At 3/6/08 04:29 PM, Al6200 wrote: Microevolution and macroevolution AREN'T REAL CONCEPTS, they're buzzwords created by the CREATIONIST movement in order to selectively draw from the theory of evolution.

thank you. </thread>

[Zeistro]

Ironically, neither micro or macro evolution has been proven scientifically. Natural selection has been observed, but the reason evolution is still called a theory is because there's never been an observed mutation where new genetic information is gained. There's been observed mutation where information was either lost or damaged.

In short, it's a fascinating subject to study. If I clogged up this topic with a pointless post I apologize.

[Memorize]

At 3/6/08 04:29 PM, Al6200 wrote: Microevolution and macroevolution AREN'T REAL CONCEPTS, they're buzzwords created by the CREATIONIST movement in order to selectively draw from the theory of evolution.

Macro-Evolution first coined in 1927 by evolutionist: Filipchenko

However, he was not a "darwinian".

One of his students by the name of Theodosius Dobzhansky used the terms in his book Genetics, and the origin of species, in 1937.

Hey look. Just like how people believed Columbus was fighting against the religious on earth being flat, turned out to be false, so did this!

[Drakim]

At 3/6/08 05:34 PM, Zeistro wrote: Ironically, neither micro or macro evolution has been proven scientifically. Natural selection has been observed, but the reason evolution is still called a theory is because there's never been an observed mutation where new genetic information is gained. There's been observed mutation where information was either lost or damaged.

In short, it's a fascinating subject to study. If I clogged up this topic with a pointless post I apologize.

And you'll always be ignorant if you keep repeating what you are told instead of checking things out yourself.

Evolution as theory and fact
Antibiotic Mutation
It's right there. First hit on google.

But, If I know this game right, you won't bother to click on the links, and I'll find you posting the same nonsense elsewhere, perhaps bragging that nobody has been able to refute you. Sign.

[Drakim]

At 3/6/08 05:38 PM, Memorize wrote: Hey look. Just like how people believed Columbus was fighting against the religious on earth being flat, turned out to be false, so did this!

Wait, are you claiming that it isn't the religious behind the anti-evolution movement? oo

[Memorize]

At 3/6/08 05:45 PM, Drakim wrote:

Wait, are you claiming that it isn't the religious behind the anti-evolution movement? oo

No.

I'm saying that the religious today use the terms in order to distinct what short term and long term evolution are (ie. push their agenda), whereas the evolutionists try to make a case that there is no difference in order to push their agenda along.

The problem with his statement was that he claimed that the terms were thought up by the religious community in an attempt to sabotage evolution. But in fact, the words were created by evolutionists themselves.

However, I would think there's a difference between what we observe and what we theorize. What we can test and what we can hypothesize.

But i'd say you guys don't have a very good track record so far with "truth" assertions:

1) Columbus fighting to say the world is round against the religious who said it was flat.
-False. Columbus argued the world was pare shaped and the world (including the religious he spoke towards) have known the earth was round for centuries before-hand.

2) Creationists made up the terms macro and micro-evolution
-False. Stated above.

Shall we go for a third?

[Al6200]

At 3/6/08 05:34 PM, Zeistro wrote: Ironically, neither micro or macro evolution has been proven scientifically.

It's been proven with at least as much rigor as gravity, or any other scientific theory.

:Natural selection has been observed, but the reason evolution is still called a theory is because :there's never been an observed mutation where new genetic information is gained.

Ummm... Relative to the organism, information isn't really "gained" or "lost". A genetic mutation changes the phenotype of some aspect of the organism. Most mutations do nothing. A few cause cancer, by causing cells to reproduce out of control. But note that even cancer isn't a "loss" of cellular information. It's just a change, to support a different phenotype.

But a handful of mutations change the phenotype to the advantage of the organism. These aren't fundamentally any different than the mutations that cause cancer - they just cause different changes to the phenotype.

In short, it's a fascinating subject to study. If I clogged up this topic with a pointless post I apologize.

No reason to apologize. It's not like you're clogging up the thread with worthless garbage, or flaming people in a mean or senseless sort of way. You just don't understand evolution theory very well, and you're making huge leaps of logic and broad conclusions based on your limited knowledge.

A good path to understanding evolution is studying Game Theory:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27 s_Dilemma

http://www.amazon.com/Evolutionary-Dynam ics-Exploring-Equations-Life/dp/06740233 82/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1 204844653&sr=8-1

This book ^^^ is really good, but uses quite a bit of complex math. (Advanced Algebra is a must. Difficult to understand without Linear Algebra or Differential Equations).

But to finish, I'll give you a simple concept that underlies all of evolution:

Does evolution select for organisms that behave rationally and maximize their own reproductive ratio?

(Think about that, a lot).

[Brick-top]

At 3/6/08 04:29 PM, Al6200 wrote: Microevolution and macroevolution AREN'T REAL CONCEPTS, they're buzzwords created by the CREATIONIST movement in order to selectively draw from the theory of evolution.

Can you at least please confirm to me that Yuri Filipchenko was a creationist?

[DeathAura]

At 3/6/08 05:34 PM, Zeistro wrote: Ironically, neither micro or macro evolution has been proven scientifically. Natural selection has been observed, but the reason evolution is still called a theory is because there's never been an observed mutation where new genetic information is gained. There's been observed mutation where information was either lost or damaged.

In short, it's a fascinating subject to study. If I clogged up this topic with a pointless post I apologize.

There may not be a fact here, but its either one, the other, or both working together. We know that far. Obviously Creationism doesn't have a scientific standpoint right now since no sciences really stick up for creationism.

[Elfer]

At 3/6/08 04:16 PM, Memorize wrote: Except that you know where the grocery store is. The grocery store is existing in the same time you are. And unless the road suddenly went through massive changes and split into many seperate directions, you'll find the store.

The point is, we've observed speciation in fruit flies, which is essentially proof of concept for macroevolution.

[Memorize]

At 3/6/08 07:08 PM, Elfer wrote:

The point is, we've observed speciation in fruit flies, which is essentially proof of concept for macroevolution.

How do fruit flies tie into your earlier statement?

Seems to me like I found a flaw with in your logic and now you're just drudging up miniscule experiments that prove next to nothing.

Why next to nothing? Because with fruit fly experimentation, there has also been massive failure in certain instances in the past 60 years.

Stop nit-picking.

[Ravariel]

At 3/6/08 07:28 PM, Memorize wrote: Why next to nothing? Because with fruit fly experimentation, there has also been massive failure in certain instances in the past 60 years.

Lmao, a BLOG linking to creationscience.com? Please. Even you are better than that.

Observed speciation.

With sources... something not likely found on creationscience.com.

[Memorize]

At 3/7/08 12:12 AM, Ravariel wrote:

With sources... something not likely found on creationscience.com.

And what I said wouldn't be found on an evolutionist website either.

I knew if I linked to a creationist website, people would simpley dismiss it like a link from FOX news. And I knew I would never find any of its failures from an evolutionist website either.

So I opted for a blog with responses.

[SadisticMonkey]

At 3/6/08 05:34 PM, Zeistro wrote: because there's never been an observed mutation where new genetic information is gained.

Erm...evolution isn't about gaining the amount of genetic material so much as it is the change of genetic material.

And also, Downs Syndrome is the result of a mutation that causes extra genetic material.

[SolInvictus]

micro and macro are specifications not differing theories as creationists claim.

[Memorize]

At 3/7/08 01:20 AM, SolInvictus wrote: micro and macro are specifications not differing theories as creationists claim.

I honestly don't see a lot of religious people saying they are seperate theories. Most of them claim that micro-evolution is real, they simpley reject the idea of a species evolving into another.

They typically make a disctinction between the two terms, not outright seperate them. Though there are those who do claim that they are seperate.

[SadisticMonkey]

Oh wait sorry guys I was wrong evolution is fake.

[Elfer]

At 3/6/08 07:28 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 3/6/08 07:08 PM, Elfer wrote:

The point is, we've observed speciation in fruit flies, which is essentially proof of concept for macroevolution.

How do fruit flies tie into your earlier statement?

Speciation in fruit flies basically demonstrates that it IS possible to drive all the way to the grocery store.

[SolInvictus]

At 3/7/08 01:32 AM, Memorize wrote: I honestly don't see a lot of religious people saying they are seperate theories. Most of them claim that micro-evolution is real, they simpley reject the idea of a species evolving into another.
They typically make a disctinction between the two terms, not outright seperate them. Though there are those who do claim that they are seperate.

in creationist uses micro evolution is its own theory (it is an explanation, thats what a theory is). if they considered it to be just a term or specification there would be no need to differentiate it from the theory of evolution (which they do since they are using it to argue against evolution).

[poxpower]

At 3/7/08 12:34 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 3/7/08 12:12 AM, Ravariel wrote:

With sources... something not likely found on creationscience.com.

And what I said wouldn't be found on an evolutionist website either.

But I mean, how come only religious websites talk about all these things that "prove" evolution is wrong when any scientist who would manage to do such a thing would pretty much win a nobel prize right there on the spot?

I mean this is all the same shit as UFOs, the Loch Ness monster, psychic powers etc etc. There's thousands, if not millions, of people who claim to know these things are true for a fact, and they sometimes give themselves pretty fancy titles and some of these people have college education ( unrelated to the domain usually ).
But the second you try to test this shit, BOOM.

[Memorize]

At 3/7/08 01:45 AM, Elfer wrote:

Speciation in fruit flies basically demonstrates that it IS possible to drive all the way to the grocery store.

Yes. But there are still so many flaws with that grocery store adaptation.

Just come up with a better one.

At 3/7/08 01:53 AM, SolInvictus wrote:

in creationist uses micro evolution is its own theory (it is an explanation, thats what a theory is). if they considered it to be just a term or specification there would be no need to differentiate it from the theory of evolution (which they do since they are using it to argue against evolution).

And as pointed above: It was first 'seperated' in such a way by an EVOLUTIONIST, not a creationist.

You can say that they're part of the overall theory, but you can make a distinction between observation and testing opposed to theorizing.

At 3/7/08 02:00 AM, poxpower wrote:

But I mean, how come only religious websites talk about all these things that "prove" evolution is wrong when any scientist who would manage to do such a thing would pretty much win a nobel prize right there on the spot?

Why are we still using outdated/false information while providing no counter-argument in our school biology books?

The world may never know.

I wasn't defending creationism, nor was I attacking evolution.

I was simpley correcting an error while noting that those with an agenda to push almost always nit-pick the information to prove their side of the argument.

But the second you try to test this shit, BOOM.

Quit being butt-hurt. Are you still pissed off when you found out I wasn't as "religious" as you previously thought I was?

[SolInvictus]

At 3/7/08 02:21 AM, Memorize wrote: And as pointed above: It was first 'seperated' in such a way by an EVOLUTIONIST, not a creationist.

You can say that they're part of the overall theory, but you can make a distinction between observation and testing opposed to theorizing.

but the purpose of differing between the two is descriptive and not theoretical as implied by creationist use of the terms.

[Memorize]

At 3/7/08 02:36 AM, SolInvictus wrote:

but the purpose of differing between the two is descriptive and not theoretical as implied by creationist use of the terms.

I assuming micro-evolution to be observational and testable data, as opposed to maco, which is a well collected theory based on that data.