child of wonder
Diamond Member
- Aug 31, 2006
- 8,307
- 176
- 106
preslove
Lifer
- Sep 10, 2003
- 16,754
- 64
- 91
If you are arrogant enough to think that your particular religion is the only true explanation for the creation of the the entire fucking universe, then you're probably a stupid enough asshole to think you know better than all the god damn biologists in the world without opening an actual, honest to god scientific book on evolution.
It's not like you idiots actually have a great handle on your religion, either. If any of you actually took a decent historical Jesus course in college, your head would explode.
It's not like you idiots actually have a great handle on your religion, either. If any of you actually took a decent historical Jesus course in college, your head would explode.
IronWing
No Lifer
- Jul 20, 2001
- 72,957
- 34,129
- 136
If anyone (like my wife for example) were to ask why I waste time on ATOT, ^^^ is the reason.
BudAshes
Lifer
- Jul 20, 2003
- 13,991
- 3,348
- 146
dennilfloss
Past Lifer 1957-2014 In Memoriam
HamburgerBoy
Lifer
- Apr 12, 2004
- 27,111
- 318
- 126
Gibsons
Lifer
- Aug 14, 2001
- 12,530
- 35
- 91
Thebobo
Lifer
- Jun 19, 2006
- 18,574
- 7,672
- 136
child of wonder
Diamond Member
- Aug 31, 2006
- 8,307
- 176
- 106
You mean like how despite all the incredibly miraclous things he did and that happened around him NO ONE bothered to write any of it down for at least 35 years after he supposedly died?
One would expect the Romans to at least record "we crucifed this one guy and then the dead rose from their graves and the entire earth shook! Holy shit!"
child of wonder
Diamond Member
- Aug 31, 2006
- 8,307
- 176
- 106
Bill Brasky
Diamond Member
- May 18, 2006
- 4,324
- 1
- 0
MrColin
Platinum Member
- May 21, 2003
- 2,403
- 3
- 81
- Mar 14, 2011
- 3,622
- 0
- 0
What is the difference between Microevolution and Macroevolution?
Subscribe to our Question of the Week by entering your email address
in the field below and clicking on "Subscribe."
Question: "What is the difference between Microevolution and Macroevolution?"
Answer: Microevolution is an uncontroversial, well-documented, naturally occurring biological phenomenon. It happens every day. It is the process whereby preexisting genetic information is rearranged, corrupted, and/or lost through sexual reproduction and/or genetic mutation producing relatively small-scale (“micro”
changes within a population. Two long-haired dogs producing a short-haired puppy would be an example of microevolution (we’ll look at why in a moment).
Macroevolution is the somewhat more controversial, theoretical extrapolation of microevolution that requires the introduction of new genetic information. It is believed to produce large-scale (“macro” changes. An amphibian evolving into a reptile or a reptile evolving into a bird would be examples of macroevolution.
Macroevolution is an important concept because Darwinists believe that it is the mechanism for their idea that all life evolved from a common primordial ancestor. Since microevolution is small-scale (“micro” biological change, and macroevolution is large-scale (“macro” biological change, many Darwinists argue that macroevolution is simply the accumulation of microevolutionary changes over time. Ostensibly, this is a reasonable extrapolation of microevolution. Darwinists, therefore, often cite evidence for microevolution as evidence for macroevolution. However, because macroevolution requires new additional genetic information, no amount of rearrangement, corruption or loss of existing genetic information will produce macroevolution. In other words, no amount of microevolution will produce macroevolution. Darwinists draw a false correlation between the two. We will now take a closer look at both microevolution and macroevolution.
Microevolution
We will begin with microevolution. Let’s say, for example, that within the dog genome there are both a gene for long hair (H) and a gene for short hair (h). Now imagine that the very first dogs possessed both genes (Hh). If two Hh dogs bred, half of the Hh from one dog would combine with half of the Hh from the other dog through sexual reproduction, and there would be four possible outcomes for offspring: HH, Hh, hH and hh puppies.
Now let’s suppose that the longhair H gene is the dominant gene and the shorthair h gene is the recessive gene. That means that when a dog possesses both genes, only the longhair H gene will be expressed, i.e., the dog will have long hair. So, if two longhair Hh dogs bred, the odds are that they would have three longhair puppies (HH, Hh and hH) and one shorthair puppy (hh). The two longhair dogs having a shorthair puppy would be an example of change within a population resulting from the rearrangement of preexisting genetic information (i.e., microevolution).
If a longhair Hh dog bred with a shorthair hh dog, the odds are that they would have two longhair puppies (Hh and hH) and two shorthair puppies (hh and hh). If two shorthair hh dogs bred, they would produce only shorthair hh puppies. And if this group of shorthair hh dogs became isolated from the longhair HH, Hh and hH dogs, they would lose access to the longhair H gene altogether and become an “isolated gene pool.” When it comes to dogs, isolated gene pools are called “purebreds.” Likewise, if a group of longhair HH dogs became isolated from the shorthair h gene, they would be considered purebred. On the other hand, the longhair Hh and hH dogs would be called “mutts.” Human breeders have been exploiting this biological phenomenon for thousands of years, selecting dog couples to mate based on their appearance in order to accentuate and attenuate traits gradually over time and thereby introduce new breeds.
Genetic Mutation
Now imagine that, within a longhair Hh population, a genetic mutation disabled the expression of the longhair H gene, and that mutation was reproduced over and over again within the population. The formerly longhair population would become shorthair, not because of the rearrangement of genes through sexual reproduction but because of genetic mutation.
Another important example of microevolution through genetic mutation is when a population of insects becomes resistant to a certain pesticide, or when bacteria become resistant to antibiotics. What happens in these instances is that through mutation the insects or bacteria lose the ability to produce the enzyme which interacts with the poison. The pesticide or antibiotic, therefore, has no effect. But the insects or bacteria don’t gain any new genetic information; they lose it. It is not, therefore, an example of macroevolution as it is often misinterpreted, but of microevolution. As biophysicist Dr. Lee Spetner explains, “All of the mutations that have been examined on a molecular level show that the organism has lost information and not gained it.” (“From a Frog to a Prince,” documentary by Keziah Films, 1998)
Macroevolution
Now let’s look at macroevolution. Darwinists believe that all life is genetically related and has descended from a common ancestor. The first birds and the first mammals are believed to have evolved from a reptile; the first reptile is believed to have evolved from an amphibian; the first amphibian is believed to have evolved from a fish; the first fish is believed to have evolved from a lower form of life, and so on, until we go all the way back to the first single-celled organism, which is believed to have evolved from inorganic matter. [The acronym to remember is FARM: Fish to Amphibian to Reptile to Mammal.]
The very first single-celled organism did not possess all of the genetic information for a human, so in order for humans to have ultimately evolved from a primitive single-celled organism, a lot of genetic information had to be added along the way. Change resulting from the introduction of new genetic information is “macroevolution.”
The reason why macroevolution is controversial and remains theoretical is that there is no known way for entirely new genetic information to be added to a genome. Darwinists have been hoping that genetic mutation would provide a mechanism, but so far that has not been the case. As Dr. Spetner again explains, “I really do not believe that the neo-Darwinian model can account for large-scale evolution [i.e., macroevolution]. What they really can’t account for is the buildup of information. …And not only is it improbable on the mathematical level, that is, theoretically, but experimentally one has not found a single mutation that one can point at that actually adds information. In fact, every beneficial mutation that I have seen reduces the information, it loses information.” (Ibid.)
Creation vs. Evolution
When Creationists say they don’t believe in evolution, they are not talking about microevolution. They are referring to macroevolution. Microevolution is a credibly observed scientific phenomenon. What Creationists do not believe in is Darwin’s macroevolutionary extrapolation of microevolution. Unlike microevolution, there is no true scientific evidence for macroevolution, and, in fact, there is significant evidence against it. The distinction between microevolution and macroevolution is, therefore, an important one for those interested in the creation-vs.-evolution debate.
Subscribe to our Question of the Week by entering your email address
in the field below and clicking on "Subscribe."
Answer: Microevolution is an uncontroversial, well-documented, naturally occurring biological phenomenon. It happens every day. It is the process whereby preexisting genetic information is rearranged, corrupted, and/or lost through sexual reproduction and/or genetic mutation producing relatively small-scale (“micro”
changes within a population. Two long-haired dogs producing a short-haired puppy would be an example of microevolution (we’ll look at why in a moment).Macroevolution is the somewhat more controversial, theoretical extrapolation of microevolution that requires the introduction of new genetic information. It is believed to produce large-scale (“macro”
changes. An amphibian evolving into a reptile or a reptile evolving into a bird would be examples of macroevolution. Macroevolution is an important concept because Darwinists believe that it is the mechanism for their idea that all life evolved from a common primordial ancestor. Since microevolution is small-scale (“micro”
biological change, and macroevolution is large-scale (“macro” biological change, many Darwinists argue that macroevolution is simply the accumulation of microevolutionary changes over time. Ostensibly, this is a reasonable extrapolation of microevolution. Darwinists, therefore, often cite evidence for microevolution as evidence for macroevolution. However, because macroevolution requires new additional genetic information, no amount of rearrangement, corruption or loss of existing genetic information will produce macroevolution. In other words, no amount of microevolution will produce macroevolution. Darwinists draw a false correlation between the two. We will now take a closer look at both microevolution and macroevolution.Microevolution
We will begin with microevolution. Let’s say, for example, that within the dog genome there are both a gene for long hair (H) and a gene for short hair (h). Now imagine that the very first dogs possessed both genes (Hh). If two Hh dogs bred, half of the Hh from one dog would combine with half of the Hh from the other dog through sexual reproduction, and there would be four possible outcomes for offspring: HH, Hh, hH and hh puppies.
Now let’s suppose that the longhair H gene is the dominant gene and the shorthair h gene is the recessive gene. That means that when a dog possesses both genes, only the longhair H gene will be expressed, i.e., the dog will have long hair. So, if two longhair Hh dogs bred, the odds are that they would have three longhair puppies (HH, Hh and hH) and one shorthair puppy (hh). The two longhair dogs having a shorthair puppy would be an example of change within a population resulting from the rearrangement of preexisting genetic information (i.e., microevolution).
If a longhair Hh dog bred with a shorthair hh dog, the odds are that they would have two longhair puppies (Hh and hH) and two shorthair puppies (hh and hh). If two shorthair hh dogs bred, they would produce only shorthair hh puppies. And if this group of shorthair hh dogs became isolated from the longhair HH, Hh and hH dogs, they would lose access to the longhair H gene altogether and become an “isolated gene pool.” When it comes to dogs, isolated gene pools are called “purebreds.” Likewise, if a group of longhair HH dogs became isolated from the shorthair h gene, they would be considered purebred. On the other hand, the longhair Hh and hH dogs would be called “mutts.” Human breeders have been exploiting this biological phenomenon for thousands of years, selecting dog couples to mate based on their appearance in order to accentuate and attenuate traits gradually over time and thereby introduce new breeds.
Genetic Mutation
Now imagine that, within a longhair Hh population, a genetic mutation disabled the expression of the longhair H gene, and that mutation was reproduced over and over again within the population. The formerly longhair population would become shorthair, not because of the rearrangement of genes through sexual reproduction but because of genetic mutation.
Another important example of microevolution through genetic mutation is when a population of insects becomes resistant to a certain pesticide, or when bacteria become resistant to antibiotics. What happens in these instances is that through mutation the insects or bacteria lose the ability to produce the enzyme which interacts with the poison. The pesticide or antibiotic, therefore, has no effect. But the insects or bacteria don’t gain any new genetic information; they lose it. It is not, therefore, an example of macroevolution as it is often misinterpreted, but of microevolution. As biophysicist Dr. Lee Spetner explains, “All of the mutations that have been examined on a molecular level show that the organism has lost information and not gained it.” (“From a Frog to a Prince,” documentary by Keziah Films, 1998)
Macroevolution
Now let’s look at macroevolution. Darwinists believe that all life is genetically related and has descended from a common ancestor. The first birds and the first mammals are believed to have evolved from a reptile; the first reptile is believed to have evolved from an amphibian; the first amphibian is believed to have evolved from a fish; the first fish is believed to have evolved from a lower form of life, and so on, until we go all the way back to the first single-celled organism, which is believed to have evolved from inorganic matter. [The acronym to remember is FARM: Fish to Amphibian to Reptile to Mammal.]
The very first single-celled organism did not possess all of the genetic information for a human, so in order for humans to have ultimately evolved from a primitive single-celled organism, a lot of genetic information had to be added along the way. Change resulting from the introduction of new genetic information is “macroevolution.”
The reason why macroevolution is controversial and remains theoretical is that there is no known way for entirely new genetic information to be added to a genome. Darwinists have been hoping that genetic mutation would provide a mechanism, but so far that has not been the case. As Dr. Spetner again explains, “I really do not believe that the neo-Darwinian model can account for large-scale evolution [i.e., macroevolution]. What they really can’t account for is the buildup of information. …And not only is it improbable on the mathematical level, that is, theoretically, but experimentally one has not found a single mutation that one can point at that actually adds information. In fact, every beneficial mutation that I have seen reduces the information, it loses information.” (Ibid.)
Creation vs. Evolution
When Creationists say they don’t believe in evolution, they are not talking about microevolution. They are referring to macroevolution. Microevolution is a credibly observed scientific phenomenon. What Creationists do not believe in is Darwin’s macroevolutionary extrapolation of microevolution. Unlike microevolution, there is no true scientific evidence for macroevolution, and, in fact, there is significant evidence against it. The distinction between microevolution and macroevolution is, therefore, an important one for those interested in the creation-vs.-evolution debate.
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,791
- 6,350
- 126
- Mar 14, 2011
- 3,622
- 0
- 0
False. Analogy would be like
Only observing 4-1=3 and 3-1=2
Then saying that 2+2=4 when that has never been observed.
waggy
No Lifer
- Dec 14, 2000
- 68,143
- 10
- 81
Macro-evolution: An arbitrary point that those who don't understand evolution can use to say something hasn't evolved enough to prove evolution. Of course if something evolves past that arbitrary point they simply chose another point.
PlasmaBomb
Lifer
- Nov 19, 2004
- 11,636
- 2
- 81
It's more like saying that 10 - 9 = 1, 20 - 19 = 1, 30 - 29 = 1, 40 - 39 = 1, 50 - 49 = 1, 60 - 59 = 1, 70 - 69 = 1, 80 - 79 = 1, 90 - 89 = 1, but 100 - 99 has never been observed and can not therefore also be 1.
SagaLore
Elite Member
- Dec 18, 2001
- 24,036
- 21
- 81
(3-1)+(3-1)=4
((4-1)-1)+((4-1)-1)=4
((4)-2)+((4)-2)=4
(4+4-2-2)=4
4=4
Interesting, you're right, but I was able to use both of your first 2 observed to prove out your 3rd theorized.
:sneaky:
JulesMaximus
No Lifer
- Jul 3, 2003
- 74,585
- 985
- 126
- Mar 14, 2011
- 3,622
- 0
- 0
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter