Why micro vs macro evolution matters

_{Denyse O'Leary

June 2, 2015

Evolution, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

The definition of macroevolution is surprisingly non-precise for a scientific discipline. Macroevolution can be defined as evolution above the species level, or evolution on a ‘grand scale’, or microevolution + 3.8 billion years. It has never been observed, but a theoretical example is the evolution from a chordate eel-like creature to a human being. Many people who embrace Darwinian evolution confidently state that evolution is a proven fact, not a theory. They say this in the basis of thousands of papers discussing microevolution. Herein lays the second mistake … the assumption that because variation/microevolution is such an overwhelmingly proven fact that, therefore, macroevolution must be as well.

Macroevolution is very different from microevolution. The reason there are so many countless observations of variation/microevolution is that it requires no statistically significant levels of novel genetic information; it is trivially easy to achieve. More.

And macroevolution is the road to Arcturus, right?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

Indeed change within kind etc must be true. Nature insists colour preserves creatures from being eaton. So it matters. Wrong looks equals extinction. Yet colour in people is not from this mechanism of micro evolution. its from some kind of innate triggering mechanism that changed our bodies upon migration to new areas post flood. Micro is minor. Macro demands mutations that change creatures enough to select a new population from it. Then more mutations. Bugs to buffalos. Naw. Thats wrong and flirting with stupid. Its alchemy with mutations. Evos are modern alchemists.Robert Byers_{June 2, 2015
June
06
Jun
2
02
2015
09:52 PM
9
09
52
PM
PDT}

reverendspy @22 You brought up a very interesting point. Thank you. The biblical verse you quoted is from the below context (Mark 10:1-9), where Jesus appears teaching about divorce being against the true relationship between male and female within marriage, quoting Genesis 2:24 I don't see this passage being about the exact time of their creation, but rather about their equal positions from God's perspective. But I could be wrong about this. Since God created time, the concepts "before time existed" or "before we were born" are not fully understandable to us (at least not to me), as it is in passages like Galatians 1:15 where Paul wrote: "But when He who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by His grace,..." God set him apart before he existed physically? We should be very careful when reading the scriptures, so we don't read more than what it says or less than what it says. When we are not sure, it's better to humbly leave it like that, not sure, while asking God to reveal it to us, if that's His will, for His glory. Mark 10:1-9 (ESV) 1 And He left there and went to the region of Judea and beyond the Jordan, and crowds gathered to Him again. And again, as was His custom, He taught them. 2 And Pharisees came up and in order to test Him asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” 3 He answered them, “What did Moses command you?” 4 They said, “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce and to send her away.” 5 And Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. 6 But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ 7 ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. 9 What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”Dionisio_{June 2, 2015
June
06
Jun
2
02
2015
08:34 PM
8
08
34
PM
PDT}

also of note, as far as quantum mechanics is concerned, atheistic materialists have a far, far, worse problem than YECs have:
Lecture 11: Decoherence and Hidden Variables - Scott Aaronson - MIT associate Professor Excerpt: "Look, we all have fun ridiculing the creationists who think the world sprang into existence on October 23, 4004 BC at 9AM (presumably Babylonian time), with the fossils already in the ground, light from distant stars heading toward us, etc. But if we accept the usual picture of quantum mechanics, then in a certain sense the situation is far worse: the world (as you experience it) might as well not have existed 10^-43 seconds ago!" http://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec11.html Reality doesn’t exist until we measure it, quantum experiment confirms Mind = blown. - FIONA MACDONALD - 1 JUN 2015 Excerpt: "It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it," lead researcher and physicist Andrew Truscott said in a press release. http://www.sciencealert.com/reality-doesn-t-exist-until-we-measure-it-quantum-experiment-confirms
Verse:
Colossians 1:17 "He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together."
bornagain77_{June 2, 2015
June
06
Jun
2
02
2015
07:38 PM
7
07
38
PM
PDT}

Mung @16
An updated list of cell types is presented for a familiar, albeit overlooked model taxon, adult Homo sapiens, with 411 cell types, including 145 types of neurons, recognised.
411 cell types? Check this out:
There are probably well over 7,000 statistically distinct cell types with unique mRNA and protein expression profiles in brain. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/mystery-at-the-heart-of-life/#comment-567306
Dionisio_{June 2, 2015
June
06
Jun
2
02
2015
07:32 PM
7
07
32
PM
PDT}

bornagain77> Thanks I'll check these videos outreverendspy_{June 2, 2015
June
06
Jun
2
02
2015
07:17 PM
7
07
17
PM
PDT}

Though there are YECs in ID, I personally am not a YEC and I also personally don't think scriptures teach a YEC point of view:
Dr. Hugh Ross appeared on Fox News with Lauren Green to discuss Science and the Book of Genesis. (Long Days vs. 24 hour Days) http://video.foxnews.com/v/3633724402001/does-science-support-the-book-of-genesis/#sp=show- Hugh Ross - Robustly Testing RTB's (Old Earth) Creation Model against all the competing models - 2014 video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlYzYMDpTwY ,,, 'And if you're curious about how Genesis 1, in particular, fairs. Hey, we look at the Days in Genesis as being long time periods, which is what they must be if you read the Bible consistently, and the Bible scores 4 for 4 in Initial Conditions and 10 for 10 on the Creation Events' Hugh Ross - Evidence For Intelligent Design Is Everywhere; video https://vimeo.com/118304005 Seven Days That Divide The World (John Lennox) – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Y-AGFfKZFM
Of related note:
The Meaning and Purpose of Creation - John Lennox - video - 31:00 minute mark (in Genesis there is a sequence of creative acts that are not the same act) https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=rWUNbNsa-yA#t=1915 55:18 minute mark quote: "According to Genesis you do not get from the non-living to the living without the words 'And God said,,'. According to Genesis you not get from the animal to the human without the words 'And God said,,,' - John Lennox
bornagain77_{June 2, 2015
June
06
Jun
2
02
2015
07:10 PM
7
07
10
PM
PDT}

Thanks everyone for your answers to my question. I don't think I'm wrong in believing that most contributors on here have some sort of faith in God, As I do: I know that many believers have turned to guided evolution as an explanation of how the diversity of life came to be on earth. I have struggled with this concept from a theological standpoint. For instance Christ whom I believe is and was the agent of creation spoke of that event as something that occurred at the time of Adam. Mar_10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. At least that has been my interpretation of the verse. So genealogically speaking the creation of living things should be measured in thousands of years not millions or billions. If this is the case, what room does that leave for evolution at all, guided or unguided. Was Jesus a YEC? The book of Genesis is intrinsically tied to Christs redemptive work. Sin and death entered with Adam and were dealt with through Christs death and resurrection. And all creation will one day be set free from the bondage of corruption. OK I don't want to preach:) But these appear to me to be foundational questions that go to the very heart of the christian faith. Is there a way to reconcile these things? I am old enough and have had enough experiences with God to trust Him even though I don't understand everything. But I also know those who are not as strong and have had their faith torn away by the theory of evolution. This bothers me: From the answers that were given to my question regarding actual proof for evolution. I am amazed that it holds the sway and power that it does in the world. Why are not more scientists and professors standing up to say "the emperor has no clothes"reverendspy_{June 2, 2015
June
06
Jun
2
02
2015
06:45 PM
6
06
45
PM
PDT}

Even Lenski's Long Term Evolution Experiment (LTEE) failed to turn up any evidence for Darwinian evolution:
Lenski's Long-Term Evolution Experiment: 25 Years and Counting - Michael Behe - November 21, 2013 Excerpt: Twenty-five years later the culture -- a cumulative total of trillions of cells -- has been going for an astounding 58,000 generations and counting. As the article points out, that's equivalent to a million years in the lineage of a large animal such as humans. Combined with an ability to track down the exact identities of bacterial mutations at the DNA level, that makes Lenski's project the best, most detailed source of information on evolutionary processes available anywhere,,, ,,,for proponents of intelligent design the bottom line is that the great majority of even beneficial mutations have turned out to be due to the breaking, degrading, or minor tweaking of pre-existing genes or regulatory regions (Behe 2010). There have been no mutations or series of mutations identified that appear to be on their way to constructing elegant new molecular machinery of the kind that fills every cell. For example, the genes making the bacterial flagellum are consistently turned off by a beneficial mutation (apparently it saves cells energy used in constructing flagella). The suite of genes used to make the sugar ribose is the uniform target of a destructive mutation, which somehow helps the bacterium grow more quickly in the laboratory. Degrading a host of other genes leads to beneficial effects, too.,,, - http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/11/richard_lenskis079401.html
Moreover, when the top five beneficial mutations from Lenski’s experiment were combined to see what would happen, the result was what is termed 'negative epistasis, which is the completely opposite result as would have been predicted by Darwinian theory:
Mutations : when benefits level off – June 2011 – (Lenski’s e-coli after 50,000 generations) Excerpt: After having identified the first five beneficial mutations combined successively and spontaneously in the bacterial population, the scientists generated, from the ancestral bacterial strain, 32 mutant strains exhibiting all of the possible combinations of each of these five mutations. They then noted that the benefit linked to the simultaneous presence of five mutations was less than the sum of the individual benefits conferred by each mutation individually. http://www2.cnrs.fr/en/1867.htm?theme1=7
Dr. Behe went even further and surveyed, in his book 'Edge of Evolution', the worldwide 'evolution' and Malaria and HIV which, due to their immense population sizes, should give us a much better picture of what Darwinian processes are capable of. The results were dismal for Darwinists
A review of The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism The numbers of Plasmodium and HIV in the last 50 years greatly exceeds the total number of mammals since their supposed evolutionary origin (several hundred million years ago), yet little has been achieved by evolution. This suggests that mammals could have “invented” little in their time frame. Behe: ‘Our experience with HIV gives good reason to think that Darwinism doesn’t do much—even with billions of years and all the cells in that world at its disposal’ (p. 155). http://creation.com/review-michael-behe-edge-of-evolution "The immediate, most important implication is that complexes with more than two different binding sites-ones that require three or more proteins-are beyond the edge of evolution, past what is biologically reasonable to expect Darwinian evolution to have accomplished in all of life in all of the billion-year history of the world. The reasoning is straightforward. The odds of getting two independent things right are the multiple of the odds of getting each right by itself. So, other things being equal, the likelihood of developing two binding sites in a protein complex would be the square of the probability for getting one: a double CCC, 10^20 times 10^20, which is 10^40. There have likely been fewer than 10^40 cells in the world in the last 4 billion years, so the odds are against a single event of this variety in the history of life. It is biologically unreasonable." - Michael Behe - The Edge of Evolution - page 146
Dr. Behe was mercilessly attacked by neo-Darwinists for daring to suggest that there could possibly be a limit to what unguided Darwinian processes could accomplish. But Dr. Behe's 10^20 number has now been confirmed empirically:
How Many Ways Are There to Win at Sandwalk? - Michael Behe - August 15, 2014 Excerpt: ,, with chloroquine resistance in Plasmodium falciparum. The best current statistical estimate of the frequency of de novo resistance is Nicholas White's value of 1 in 10^20 parasites. That number is now essentially fixed -- no pathway to resistance will be found that is substantially more probable than that. Although with more data the value may be refined up or down by even as much as one or two orders of magnitude (to between 1 in 10^18-10^22), it's not going very far on a log scale. Not nearly far enough to lift the shadow from Darwinism. What's more, we can also conclude that the mutations that have already been found are the most effective available of any combination of mutations whose joint probability is greater than 1 in 10^20, since more effective alternatives would already have occurred and been selected if they were available.,,, The bottom line for all of them is that the acquisition of chloroquine resistance is an event of statistical probability 1 in 10^20.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/08/how_many_ways_a088981.html podcast - Michael Behe: Vindication for 'The Edge of Evolution,' Pt. 2 http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2014-08-06T15_26_19-07_00
Realistic computer programs, as opposed to jerry-rigged Darwinian programs, give the same negative result to Darwinian claims:
Using Computer Simulation to Understand Mutation Accumulation Dynamics and Genetic Load: MENDEL’S ACCOUNTANT: J. SANFORD†, J. BAUMGARDNER‡, W. BREWER§, P. GIBSON¶, AND W. REMINE Excerpt: We apply a biologically realistic forward-time population genetics program to study human mutation accumulation under a wide-range of circumstances.,, Our numerical simulations consistently show that deleterious mutations accumulate linearly across a large portion of the relevant parameter space. http://bioinformatics.cau.edu.cn/lecture/chinaproof.pdf
Moreover, the waiting time to convert just one protein of one function to another similar protein of a different function is prohibitively long, to put it mildly"
When Theory and Experiment Collide — April 16th, 2011 by Douglas Axe Excerpt: Based on our experimental observations and on calculations we made using a published population model [3], we estimated that Darwin’s mechanism would need a truly staggering amount of time—a trillion trillion years or more—to accomplish the seemingly subtle change in enzyme function that we studied. http://biologicinstitute.org/2011/04/16/when-theory-and-experiment-collide/ More from Ann Gauger on why humans didn’t happen the way Darwin said - July 2012 Excerpt: Each of these new features probably required multiple mutations. Getting a feature that requires six neutral mutations is the limit of what bacteria can produce. For primates (e.g., monkeys, apes and humans) the limit is much more severe. Because of much smaller effective population sizes (an estimated ten thousand for humans instead of a billion for bacteria) and longer generation times (fifteen to twenty years per generation for humans vs. a thousand generations per year for bacteria), it would take a very long time for even a single beneficial mutation to appear and become fixed in a human population. You don’t have to take my word for it. In 2007, Durrett and Schmidt estimated in the journal Genetics that for a single mutation to occur in a nucleotide-binding site and be fixed in a primate lineage would require a waiting time of six million years. The same authors later estimated it would take 216 million years for the binding site to acquire two mutations, if the first mutation was neutral in its effect. Facing Facts But six million years is the entire time allotted for the transition from our last common ancestor with chimps to us according to the standard evolutionary timescale. Two hundred and sixteen million years takes us back to the Triassic, when the very first mammals appeared. One or two mutations simply aren’t sufficient to produce the necessary changes— sixteen anatomical features—in the time available. At most, a new binding site might affect the regulation of one or two genes. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/more-from-ann-gauger-on-why-humans-didnt-happen-the-way-darwin-said/
Although this post has been a bit long reverendspy, hopefully you can now see a bit more clearly just how grossly inadequate Darwinian explanations are for all the wondrous diversity of life we see around us. Verse and Music:
1 Thessalonians 5:21 But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; Hillsong - Mighty to Save - With Subtitles/Lyrics http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-08YZF87OBQ
bornagain77_{June 2, 2015
June
06
Jun
2
02
2015
05:11 PM
5
05
11
PM
PDT}

reverendspy, although you asked for a short answer for the 'mountains of evidence' claim, and I gave it with the Behe paper, I still would like to expand just a bit more on the Behe paper so as to clearly illustrate just how sorely lacking Darwinists are in ANY confirming evidence for their grandiose claims:. Neo-Darwinists claim that evolution is an observed fact on par with the observed fact of gravity. But very contrary to their claims, the plain fact of the matter is that there are ZERO observed instances of neo-Darwinian evolution building up non-trivial functional complexity: How about the oft cited example for neo-Darwinism of antibiotic resistance? Does it provide evidence for Darwinian claims?
Is Antibiotic Resistance evidence for evolution? - 'The Fitness Test' - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYaU4moNEBU List Of Degraded Molecular Abilities Of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria: Excerpt: Resistance to antibiotics and other antimicrobials is often claimed to be a clear demonstration of “evolution in a Petri dish.” ,,, all known examples of antibiotic resistance via mutation are inconsistent with the genetic requirements of evolution. These mutations result in the loss of pre-existing cellular systems/activities, such as porins and other transport systems, regulatory systems, enzyme activity, and protein binding. http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp
In fact, antibiotic resistance is found to be ancient instead of a recent innovation as claimed by Darwinists:
(Ancient) Cave bacteria resistant to antibiotics - April 2012 Excerpt: Antibiotic-resistant bacteria cut off from the outside world for more than four million years have been found in a deep cave. The discovery is surprising because drug resistance is widely believed to be the result of too much treatment.,,, “Our study shows that antibiotic resistance is hard-wired into bacteria. It could be billions of years old, but we have only been trying to understand it for the last 70 years,” said Dr Gerry Wright, from McMaster University in Canada, who has analysed the microbes. http://www.scotsman.com/news/health/cave-bacteria-resistant-to-antibiotics-1-2229183#
The following experiments agree with the negative result that the 'fitness test' on antibiotic resistance gave to Darwinian evolution:
Testing Evolution in the Lab With Biologic Institute's Ann Gauger - podcast with link to peer-reviewed paper Excerpt: Dr. Gauger experimentally tested two-step adaptive paths that should have been within easy reach for bacterial populations. Listen in and learn what Dr. Gauger was surprised to find as she discusses the implications of these experiments for Darwinian evolution. Dr. Gauger's paper, "Reductive Evolution Can Prevent Populations from Taking Simple Adaptive Paths to High Fitness,". http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2010-05-10T15_24_13-07_00 Response from Ralph Seelke to David Hillis Regarding Testimony on Bacterial Evolution Before Texas State Board of Education, January 21, 2009 Excerpt: He has done excellent work showing the capabilities of evolution when it can take one step at a time. I have used a different approach to show the difficulties that evolution encounters when it must take two steps at a time. So while similar, our work has important differences, and Dr. Bull’s research has not contradicted or refuted my own. http://www.discovery.org/a/9951 Epistasis between Beneficial Mutations - July 2011 Excerpt: We found that epistatic interactions between beneficial mutations were all antagonistic—the effects of the double mutations were less than the sums of the effects of their component single mutations. We found a number of cases of decompensatory interactions, an extreme form of antagonistic epistasis in which the second mutation is actually deleterious in the presence of the first. In the vast majority of cases, recombination uniting two beneficial mutations into the same genome would not be favored by selection, as the recombinant could not outcompete its constituent single mutations. https://uncommondescent.com/epigenetics/darwins-beneficial-mutations-do-not-benefit- Unexpectedly small effects of mutations in bacteria bring new perspectives – November 2010 Excerpt: Most mutations in the genes of the Salmonella bacterium have a surprisingly small negative impact on bacterial fitness. And this is the case regardless whether they lead to changes in the bacterial proteins or not.,,, using extremely sensitive growth measurements, doctoral candidate Peter Lind showed that most mutations reduced the rate of growth of bacteria by only 0.500 percent. No mutations completely disabled the function of the proteins, and very few had no impact at all. Even more surprising was the fact that mutations that do not change the protein sequence had negative effects similar to those of mutations that led to substitution of amino acids. A possible explanation is that most mutations may have their negative effect by altering mRNA structure, not proteins, as is commonly assumed. http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-unexpectedly-small-effects-mutations-bacteria.html
As well, 35 years of trying to 'fix' unconditionally advantageous alleles in fruit flies failed, spectacularly!
Experimental Evolution in Fruit Flies – October 2010 Excerpt: “Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles.,,, “This research really upends the dominant paradigm about how species evolve,” said ecology and evolutionary biology professor Anthony Long, the primary investigator. http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2010/10/07/experimental_evolution_in_fruit_flies
Even saturating genomes with mutations failed to turn up evidence for Darwinian evolution:
Response to John Wise – October 2010 Excerpt: A technique called “saturation mutagenesis”1,2 has been used to produce every possible developmental mutation in fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster),3,4,5 roundworms (Caenorhabditis elegans),6,7 and zebrafish (Danio rerio),8,9,10 and the same technique is now being applied to mice (Mus musculus).11,12 None of the evidence from these and numerous other studies of developmental mutations supports the neo-Darwinian dogma that DNA mutations can lead to new organs or body plans–because none of the observed developmental mutations benefit the organism. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/10/response_to_john_wise038811.html
bornagain77_{June 2, 2015
June
06
Jun
2
02
2015
05:08 PM
5
05
08
PM
PDT}

reverendspy @3
what is a good simple response to those who use the mountains of evidence argument?
Approach them in a childlike manner, i.e. any question is valid. Ask questions until everything gets explained clearly enough for you to understand it. Here's an example of response: https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/a-third-way-of-evolution/#comment-567227Dionisio_{June 2, 2015
June
06
Jun
2
02
2015
05:03 PM
5
05
03
PM
PDT}

The definition of macroevolution is surprisingly non-precise for a scientific discipline.
That's rich, coming from a discipline that's notorious for its impenetrable waffleSeversky_{June 2, 2015
June
06
Jun
2
02
2015
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT}

Some of the oldest cells on Earth are single-cell organisms called bacteria. ... With a population of increasingly diverse bacterial life, the stage was set for some amazing things to happen.
http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/cells/organelles/ Does anyone still think eukaryotes evolved from bacteria?Mung_{June 2, 2015
June
06
Jun
2
02
2015
04:11 PM
4
04
11
PM
PDT}

Human cell type diversity, evolution, development, and classification with special reference to cells derived from the neural crest An updated list of cell types is presented for a familiar, albeit overlooked model taxon, adult Homo sapiens, with 411 cell types, including 145 types of neurons, recognised. Yikes!Mung_{June 2, 2015
June
06
Jun
2
02
2015
04:06 PM
4
04
06
PM
PDT}

reverendspy @3
what is a good simple response to those who use the mountains of evidence argument?
Approach them in a childlike manner, i.e. any question is valid. Ask questions until everything gets explained clearly enough to be understood. Here's an example of response: https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/a-third-way-of-evolution/#comment-567227Dionisio_{June 2, 2015
June
06
Jun
2
02
2015
03:51 PM
3
03
51
PM
PDT}

reverendspy @3
what is a good simple response to those who use the mountains of evidence argument?
Interesting question. Thank you. Since I'm not a scientist nor have the intelligence (or knowledge) to become one, I'd rather ask this simple question: Where's the beef?* Followed (if necessary) by this courteous request: Show me the money!** (*) Wendy's TV ad (**) Hollywood movieDionisio_{June 2, 2015
June
06
Jun
2
02
2015
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PDT}

Mung: Yes. Your body is full of them.
Evolved from another cell types using micro-evolutionary mechanisms, not due to adaptive mechanisms or pre-programming. How far can the known micro-evolutionary processes take us?mike1962_{June 2, 2015
June
06
Jun
2
02
2015
03:28 PM
3
03
28
PM
PDT}

Seqenenre says:
I always understood that microevolution was the proces (you can also call it just evolution) and that macro-evolution is not a biological proces at all, but just a human concept. i.e. the sum of a lot of micro-evolution.
You learned the story well. That is what we are told. Now, if we only could test that idea - you know, the idea you gave about your Mom - then we'd have some real experimental evidence to support the hypothesis.tjguy_{June 2, 2015
June
06
Jun
2
02
2015
03:28 PM
3
03
28
PM
PDT}

mike1962 @7 Good question. Thanks. The mother of all stem cells is known as zygote. From it come all known types of cells in our bodies. The mechanisms behind all that are beyond my comprehension. Calling it fascinating would be a gross understatement. :)Dionisio_{June 2, 2015
June
06
Jun
2
02
2015
03:25 PM
3
03
25
PM
PDT}

reverendspy you ask:
So if there really are mountains of evidence to support it: and it’s as obvious as gravity. Then where is the smoking gun so to speak? Where is the undeniable proof that we evolved from bacteria?
You are asking exactly the right question! I've been asking pretty much that same exact question for years and the responces I get from neo-Darwinists, (when they even try to answer the question instead of changing the subject), are always dishonest bluffs. They never admit the sheer poverty for their gradiose claims. And rest assured, if a hard-core Darwinist thinks he can pull the wool over your eyes, he will definitely try. I've seen it happen too many times and am shocked at how dishonest some hard-core Darwinists will be towards the evidence at hand. The prime example I use of this dishonest bluffing tactic by hard-core neo-Darwinists is Nick Matzke's dishonest attempt to refute Behe's claim that molecular machines cannot be had in a gradual step by step Darwinian manner:
Calling Nick Matzke's literature bluff on molecular machines - DonaldM UD blogger - April 2013 Excerpt: So now, 10 years later in 2006 Matzke and Pallen come along with this review article. The interesting thing about this article is that, despite all the hand waving claims about all these dozens if not hundreds of peer reviewed research studies showing how evolution built a flagellum, Matzke and Pallen didn’t have a single such reference in their bibliography. Nor did they reference any such study in the article. Rather, the article went into great lengths to explain how a researcher might go about conducting a study to show how evolution could have produced the system. Well, if all those articles and studies were already there, why not just point them all out? In shorty, the entire article was a tacit admission that Behe had been right all along. Fast forward to now and Andre’s question directed to Matzke. We’re now some 17 years after Behe’s book came out where he made that famous claim. And, no surprise, there still is not a single peer reviewed research study that provides the Darwinian explanation for a bacterial flagellum (or any of the other irreducibly complex biological systems Behe mentioned in the book). We’re almost 7 years after the Matzke & Pallen article. So where are all these research studies? There’s been ample time for someone to do something in this regard. Matzke will not answer the question because there is no answer he can give…no peer reviewed research study he can reference, other than the usual literature bluffing he’s done in the past. https://uncommondescent.com/irreducible-complexity/andre-asks-an-excellent-question-regarding-dna-as-a-part-of-an-in-cell-irreducibly-complex-communication-system/#comment-453291
Nick Matzke tried the same sorts of dishonest 'literature bluffing' tactics at the Dover trial, which he was instrumental in, and also more recently he literature bluffed when Stephen Meyer's book 'Darwin's Doubt' came out:
The NCSE, Judge Jones, and Bluffs About the Origin of New Functional Genetic Information – Casey Luskin – March 2010 http://www.discovery.org/a/14251 "A Masterful Feat of Courtroom Deception": Immunologist Donald Ewert on the Dover Trial - audio http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/player/web/2010-12-20T15_01_03-08_00 A Graduate Student (Nick Matzke) Writes – David Berlinski July 9, 2013 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/07/a_graduate_stud074221.html A One-Man Clade – David Berlinski – July 18, 2013 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/07/a_one_man_clade074601.html Hopeless Matzke -David Berlinski & Tyler Hampton August 18, 2013 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/08/hopeless_matzke075631.html
As you can see somewhat from Matzke's literature bluffs (bluffs which were widely applauded by rank and file neo-Darwinists by the way), the main question that needs to be answered by Darwinists, and never is, is "where does the functional information and/or complexity come from?". Neo-Darwinists, once you get past their dishonest bluffing tactics, simply have no empirical evidence whatsoever that unguided material processes can generate any non-trivial functional information/complexity. Such as even one molecular machine or a single gene. As to a short, sweet, refutation to the 'mountains of evidence' claim by neo-Darwinists, I find Dr. Behe's survey of the last four decades of laboratory evolution experiments to be extremely effective in countering that claim.
“The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain – Michael Behe – December 2010 Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain. http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/
Of course there is much more that could be said in regards of the impossibility of unguided material processes to create functional information and/or complexity, from Axe, Gauger, and many, many, others, but Behe's preceding paper pretty much clearly illustrates that Darwinian claims are sorely lacking in ANY confirming evidence for their grandiose claims. i.e. They do not even have a molehill of evidence much less a mountain as many of them are apt to claim. :)bornagain77_{June 2, 2015
June
06
Jun
2
02
2015
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT}

mike1962 @4 & @7 addendum to post #6: The case of cancer is an example of what can happen when those established mechanisms are affected by different factors or conditions. Things turn really ugly. We want to understand things as they are, we want to know how they work, so we can find available ways to fix or prevent problems that affect the established systems.Dionisio_{June 2, 2015
June
06
Jun
2
02
2015
03:17 PM
3
03
17
PM
PDT}

mike1962: I wonder if anyone can come up with a cell type that isn’t a degeneration and destructive agent of another cell type. Yes. Your body is full of them.Mung_{June 2, 2015
June
06
Jun
2
02
2015
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT}

Dionisio: Well, unfortunately we are aware of at least one case of new cell types resulting from some (undesirable) micro-evolutionary mechanisms: cancer.
I wonder if anyone can come up with a cell type that isn't a degeneration and destructive agent of another cell type.mike1962_{June 2, 2015
June
06
Jun
2
02
2015
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PDT}

mike1962 @4
Can the micro-evolutionary mechanisms account for new cell types, tissue types, organs and body plans?
Well, unfortunately we are aware of at least one case of new cell types resulting from some (undesirable) micro-evolutionary mechanisms: cancer. If we consider all the developmental and adaptability mechanisms constantly operating within the biological systems as evolutionary, then we could say that those mechanisms produce different cell types that form different tissues and organs. That capability is built-in (programmed) within the systems.Dionisio_{June 2, 2015
June
06
Jun
2
02
2015
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PDT}

reverendspy,
reverendspy: The general view in science seems to be that evolution is a given fact. It is often said that there are mountains of evidence supporting it. And to deny it is the same as saying the world is flat. So if there really are mountains of evidence to support it: and it’s as obvious as gravity. Then where is the smoking gun so to speak?
There is exactly zero evidence for unguided evolution.
what is a good simple response to those who use the mountains of evidence argument?
"Name me one example". Chances are that they come up with one of the icons of evolution. There are several severe obstacles for evolution.Box_{June 2, 2015
June
06
Jun
2
02
2015
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT}

Seqenenre: I always understood that microevolution was the proces (you can also call it just evolution) and that macro-evolution is not a biological proces at all, but just a human concept.
The problem is one of extrapolation. Can the micro-evolutionary mechanisms account for new cell types, tissue types, organs and body plans? For example, what kind of mutations does it take to turn something like a chimp's brain into a human brain? Can the micro-evolutionary mechanisms we know of account for it? If you have solid grounds to believe so, run your putative progression up the flag pole and let's see if anyone salutes.mike1962_{June 2, 2015
June
06
Jun
2
02
2015
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT}

bornagain77> Thank for your informative posts I have learned much from reading them. As a busy person who doesn’t have time to read peer reviewed studies I appreciate a place like this where opposite points of views are expressed. So here’s a question. The general view in science seems to be that evolution is a given fact. It is often said that there are mountains of evidence supporting it. And to deny it is the same as saying the world is flat. So if there really are mountains of evidence to support it: and it’s as obvious as gravity. Then where is the smoking gun so to speak? Where is the undeniable proof that we evolved from bacteria? Also: what is a good simple response to those who use the mountains of evidence argument?reverendspy_{June 2, 2015
June
06
Jun
2
02
2015
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT}

I always understood that microevolution was the proces (you can also call it just evolution) and that macro-evolution is not a biological proces at all, but just a human concept. i.e. the sum of a lot of micro-evolution. Like the example below: every birth is a bit of (micro) evolution and the sum of lots of these births can be called macro evolution 1. Every living individual animal (and every animal that lived in the past) has at least one parent, let's call her mother. 2. Every mother is of the same species as her daughter. (Well, almost every mother.) 3. Let's assume an average generation time of 15 years. 4. Me, my mother, her mother, her mother, etcetera, etcetera form a long family-line going back in time. 5. The ten millionth mother in that line was not a human being, but she is my great great ... grandmother. 6. The twenty millionth mother in that line was not even a mammal, but she is my great great great ... grandmother. 7. The 35 millionth mother was probably an eel-like creature. Another one of my great etc grandmothers. (If the 10 millionth mother or the 20 millionth mother or the 35 millionth mother in that line would have died before her (their?) reproductive age me and my mother would not exist.)Seqenenre_{June 2, 2015
June
06
Jun
2
02
2015
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT}

wd400 tried the ole micro-variation vs macro-evolution switcharoo the other day: "That’s pretty obviously evolution, isn’t it?" https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/alzheimer-disease-evolved-alongside-human-intelligence-says-nature-article/#comment-566267 to which I referenced: The Meanings of Evolution – Stephen Meyer Excerpt: Principal Meanings of Evolution in Biology Textbooks 1. Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature. 2. Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population. 3. Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor. 4. The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification, chiefly natural selection acting on random variations or mutations. 5. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor. 6. “Blind watchmaker” thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms. ,,, attempts to exclude scientific dissent (from neo-Darwinism) often employ ambiguous or shifting definitions of the term evolution. Many defenders of evolution #5 and/or #6 will offer evidence and argument for evolution in the first four senses of the term and then treat evolution in the latter two senses as equally well established. In the following section, we will show how educational policy statements and advocates for evolution often equivocate (the definitions of evolution) in their discussion of evolution,,, http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=305bornagain77_{June 2, 2015
June
06
Jun
2
02
2015
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply