Intelligent Design

Micro evolution vs Macro Evolution, Part 1

Spread the love

This is part of the third program in the Palmers’ series on understanding design in nature:

Important Note: The mutations we discuss in this session are the random mutations that Neo-Darwinists claim to be the driving force of macro-evolution. There is increasing evidence that in fact most mutations aren’t completely random, but are directed to specific areas of the genome where changes can stimulate adaptation. This is additional evidence for design, not random processes.

Group discussion questions are available here.

You may also wish to see:

New introduction to intelligent design at YouTube Part 1. Part 1 begins with the basic concepts of Darwinian Evolution. Darwin’s theory related to heredity, but the science behind genetics was a mystery in his day. Darwin’s assumptions about heredity have proven to be mistaken.

New introduction to intelligent design at YouTube, Part 2: Molecular biology Part 2 introduces the foundational concepts of Intelligent Design. Evidence from molecular biology over the past 60 years completely upends Darwinism.

Part 2 of “Introduction to intelligent design”: Recognizing Design, Part 1 Part 2 applies the core concepts of irreducible complexity and functional coherence to one of the most important functions in each cell – energy production.

3 Replies to “Micro evolution vs Macro Evolution, Part 1

  1. 1
    ET says:

    Differential accumulations of mutations can produce microevolution but are incapable of producing macroevolution. That is because DNA doesn’t determine biological form. The only thing DNA determines with respect to biological form is whether or not it will develop properly.

    Given the nature of transcription and translation, it is genetically IMPOSSIBLE for differential accumulations of mutations to produce macroevolution.

  2. 2
    jerry says:

    Want to know what the problem is? One letter of the alphabet.

    Micro evolution
    Macro evolution

    Because of the substitution of “a” for “I” it is so easy to believe it is easy for one to turn into another. In other words, we are easily led.

    But the evidence supporting this claim is zilch and there is plenty of evidence to believe it is impossible.

    Yet, here at UD we play the game as if this is what Evolution is.

    Darwin’s assumptions about heredity have proven to be mistaken.

    No, they are right on except they are very limited and form the science of genetics. Nothing to do with Evolution.

    When will we ever learn?

    Aside: the OP switches back and forth from OOL to DNA based evolution. Maybe the authors of these videos did not realize what they were doing. The descriptions are a little incoherent.

  3. 3
    jerry says:

    A basis for discussion on Evolution.

    I wrote the following analysis of the impasse that exists in the Evolution debate over 15 years ago. Basically the two sides talk pass each other. Here is the comment and it focuses on the distinctions that have to be made.

    My basic observation is that ID proponents and Darwinist talk past each other. For example,

    Evolution is a 4 tier theory.

    The first tier is the origin of life or how did a cell and DNA, RNA and proteins arise. Quite a sticky issue with no sensible answer by science. Lots of speculation and wishful thinking but nothing that makes sense. A high percentage of ID concerns are in this tier.

    The second tier is how did a one cell organism form multi-cell organisms and this include how did such complex organisms as the eye arise as these multi-cell organisms arose. How, did brains, limbs, digestive systems, neurological systems arise. These are immensely complicated but get little discussion except it all happened over time. We have all seen the “it must have evolved” comment. This is also an important area for ID but not Darwinists. Irreducible complexity operates in this tier.

    The third tier is the one that gets the most debate in the popular press and that is how did one species arise from another species when there are substantial functional differences between them. How did birds get wings to fly, how did land creatures develop oxygen breathing systems or how did man get opposable thumbs or such a big brain and why such a long time for children to develop. There is lots of speculation but no hard evidence. An occasional fossil is brought up to show the progression ignoring the fact that there had to be several thousand if not millions of other steps for these progressions of which only a handful have been found. Here the ID and the Darwinist are sometimes on common ground.

    The fourth tier is what Darwin observed on his trip on the Beagle and what most of your examples are in your comment, namely micro-evolution and can be explained by basic genetics, occasion mutations, environmental pressures and yes, natural selection. Few disagree on this fourth tier including those who call themselves Intelligent Design proponents yet this is where all the evidence is that is used to persuade everyone that Darwinism is a valid theory. The evidence in this tier is used to justify the first three tiers because the materialist needs all four tiers to justify their philosophy of life but the relevance of the evidence in tier 4 for the other tiers is scant at best.

    So to sum up, my experience is that ID concentrates on tier 1 and 2, a little bit on tier 3 and are not concerned at all with tier 4. The only thing in your comments that was not tier 4 or micro-evolution was the vestigial organs/limbs/bones. It seems the main defense of Darwinism these days is not the evidence of the theory itself but the shortcomings of the designer or the lack of perfection of the design.

    Thank you again for your comment. I learn every time I read what you write and wish there would be more like you on this blog to challenge ID proponents like myself.

    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-argument-from-incredulity-vs-the-argument-from-gullibility/#comment-40952

    This was in response to a commenter who called himself “Great Ape.” I have often commented that he was the only honest Darwinist I had ever seen. He has not commented here in over 10 years but must be someplace because he said he was young.

Leave a Reply