Evolution: Bunches Of Micros Equal A Macro?
On an older posts concerning macro and micro evolution I received a new comment I thought interesting. I figured I would created a new post since most probably do not revisit old posts including myself.
I was told:
Under most circumstances, evolution of species is a long, painstaking process. Of course, occasionally, genetic mutations in animals and plants (microbes mutate much faster) may give rise to inherently newer, related species, but generally speaking, the simplest microevolution requires decades, which is a pretty long time.
For a new species to develop, a few scenarios is possible: Cross breeding of similar breeds (Liger = Male Lion parent & Female Tiger parent), subtle, random mutations in the general population which favor natural selection, and possibly a genetic random mutation that suddenly emerges in a general population.
The truth is, evolution does not guarantee immunity from extinction. Nor does it automatically throw in raw species to make up the numbers.
And another thing. Macroevolution is not difficult to understand. Just think of it as a summation of all those minute changes in microevolution.
----------
Under most circumstances, evolution of species is a long, painstaking process… generally speaking, the simplest microevolution requires decades, which is a pretty long time. - What about macroevolution? Has man ever actually physically seen macroevolution take place?
Cross breeding of similar breeds - I have seen the turkin and beefalope in Alabama, but that is not a proof of evolution by no means. It is a proof of science playing God by taking species and crossing them with similar species. Now a turkalope, that would be interesting to see.
possibly a genetic random mutation that suddenly emerges in a general population. - Interestingly in the world of comics mutations are seen as a superior being to human, whereas in the medical field of the real world the majority are not.
possibly a genetic random mutation that suddenly emerges in a general population - Why would evolution see the beginning or initial mutation as a good thing to keep instead of removing?
Macroevolution is not difficult to understand. Just think of it as a summation of all those minute changes in microevolution. - I do not follow the logic or reasoning behind this statement. If microevolution is the minor change within a species and macroevolution is the major change from one species to a higher species, how is it that a bunch of in species changes can equal a species jump?
16 comments:
Hmm. One thing at a time.
Apparently, forensic science doesn't appeal to you much. The idea that a forensic science has to be physically present to nail a criminal would render most criminals free from crime, but as it is, there are things that allude to certain phenomena.
Like I said, there are plenty, I would say, tons of fossils, DNA data, all collating together to form a rough picture of evolution.
Unless you have a live span of a couple of million years, you cannot physically witness macro evolution, but that doesn't mean you can't prove it.
The formation of species through interbreeding is part and parcel of evolution. Like what I have said always, sex is the provocator of life!
You throw up a good point when you said most mutations are either useless or detrimental to life. That part of it is true. Most mutations are useless, although sometimes genetic mutation does throw up a useful trait of sorts.
Again, you get me wrong with macroevolution. Macroevolution is not just one giant evolutionary leap. Any evolutionist will tell you that this isn't so. Macroevolution is the accumulation of all the minute changes of DNA and species over a vast period of time.
I hope I have explained adequately.
Let me give you an example of microevolution.
Say, somewhere along the life, a few people are born with three hands. Now, as it stands, the majority of people have two hands, but it seems that, due to environmental changes, people with three hands survive better in the jungle (Let's assume a third world war destroyed civilization).
Over time, natural selection would mean that those with two hands will gradually decline in numbers. As people with three hands become more and more numerous, two emerging possibilities may occur:
Those with two hands die out because of competition from people with three hands.
Those with two hands find ways to fight the resurgence of three hands, and form their own species niche.
Could it not be argued that the fossils which are found that appear to present the conversion of one species into another species could actually simply be only a mutant (mutation) of a species and not really a proof of macroevolution?
a couple of million years - Why are we always thrown numbers in the millions when questions are asked as to macroevolution? Man has existed for at least 6000 years would you say (so even say longer)? If so, why have we not seen the ending results or final stages of macroevolution into a new species?
As I asked in why would any mutation prove good: if a snake were to grow a nub tomorrow, why would evolution proceed into an arm, tail, or something else and not simply reject it as unnecessary? If it is true that it takes millions of years, then the nub would be only a nub quite sometime and evolution could not speculate or predetermine that it would be of any use therefore never create an arm or tail.
I disagree with your three handed people. Why would there be a completed third hand produced at one time? I thought it took decades or millions of years (you said so)? So first there would be but a nub that would hinder more than help, so why would evolution keep it? It cannot perceive a hand in the works. Also whether two hands or three hands they would all still be homosapeins and not a new species.
"Unless you have a live span of a couple of million years, you cannot physically witness macro evolution, but that doesn't mean you can't prove it."
Which, essentially means that you can't prove it. Don't rationalize, understand the limitations of the theory and move on. And like most of the other believers in evolution you miss the clues staring at you right in the face. Such as this one: http://www.dinofish.com/
"Most mutations are useless, although sometimes genetic mutation does throw up a useful trait of sorts."
Yet, you have no proof of this generating a new species.
All else considered, evolution was a useful tool for science when it came about, but it's usefulness has stayed around longer than it should have given all the gaping holes in it.
Sigh.
This is getting boring. I am being made to reiterate everything again and again, and its all thrown back into my face without you understanding any part of it.
Evolution encompasses changes in biological species: When a creature evolves, it changes, nothing more, nothing less.
Man existed for 6000 yrs? Man, where did you get that data from? The Creationist idiots who couldn't even be bothered to come up with some veritable data? Where did they do their research? In their ass?
You seem to think that macroevolution has not resulted in the formation of new species. Like what I have reiterated, macroevolution is the combined result of millions, and probably more, changes present in microevolution. In order to present such data across a huge expense of time, one has to compare creatures appearing at different spectrums of time to discover vast changes of species, like from fish to amphibians.
Sadly, you don't seem to understand what I am saying, and you are wasting my time.
Mr Splinter
Another flaw in your argument: Evolution does not "speculate" the survivability of species. All it does is throw up a variety of changes in genes on a gradual basis and allows mother nature to decide what goes and does not go. This process is what Darwin termed "natural selection".
May I advise you to read up on Darwin's works as a rough guide, and check up on the latest scientific journals for a better analysis. Going into creationist websites just makes you dumb and dumber.
You seem to think that macroevolution has not resulted in the formation of new species.
Simply science has not proven macroevolution even exist. The test can only prove microevolution which is not a change from species to species.
Whether I believe man has only been here 6000 years or others believe man has been here for 195,000 only makes the issue of no man ever seeing the process of macroevolution take place more flawed, not less. The whole process, maybe not, but at least science should be able to see that last hundreds of years of the macroevolution process into a new species. Unfortunately they haven’t been able to unless they actually mix up the batch themselves.
I understand what you are saying in that you believe macroevolution takes millions upon millions of years worth of decades upon decades of microevolution to produce a new species. Can you see that science has not provided an observable testable verifiable example of macroevolution species to species jump?
Sure they may produce a “million year old” fossil they believe trust theorize is the pre human species mankind comes from, but that is simply a thinking of science based on presumptions that evolution is true therefore must have links out there somewhere.
In order to present such data across a huge expense of time, one has to compare creatures appearing at different spectrums of time to discover vast changes of species, like from fish to amphibians.
But this is based on guesses which can indeed be incorrect assumptions. As it is said there is no actual complete link of ancestry from one species to another or from mankind to a pre-mankind species. The fossils and such that are found do not prove evolution, but simply prove that creature existed whether mutation or species at that time.
Going into creationist websites just makes you dumb and dumber.
Interestingly I didn’t mention any creationist websites on this post. I did however mention one here and surprisingly the link you sent me also listed mentions this same scientist they just simply disagree with him. Calling one dumber doesn’t make one smarter.
Let me ask you something about natural selection. If evolution can work with mother nature to macroevolve species into better species, why are those people that have been starving for hundreds of years show no sign of evolving into to species that need less food and water or a variety of other things that would enable them to improve? Wouldn’t that be Darwin’s, what did he call it, oh yes, “survival of the fittest,”?
Another misnomer: Evolution does not necessarily create "better" species.
Case in point, many species that have evolved in dark caves lose their power of sight. Why? Because over millions of years the power of sight became redundant. That is precisely why bats are blind.
"Answers in Genesis" is a christian website, don't tell me it isn't creationist.
Not wasting my time here. Go to my first post and read about forensic science. Wasting time on reiterating my points is not going to work with imbecilical creatures.
Erm: Regarding you asking why people do not evolve into people requiring less food, here is food for thought.
In the highlands of Nepal, Nepaleses are found to have twice the number of blood cell counts all more. The reason for high concentration? To deal with thin air in mountainous regions.
As for the three hands narration, I am using it to illustrate a point, and not claiming that three hands is better than two.
Number two: Evolution does not decide on the survival of species: Natural Selection dictates it.
Number three: Survival of the fittest may not mean the "best" in a conventional way. The biggest and smartest brain may not work for an animal that lives in a cave, neither would running or swimming fast be useful for an animal that lives in a constraint habitat.
I am not sure you are catching up with me here, Mr Splinter, because the more I post the more I feel you are throwing the same arguments back at me: In short I feel that you are a little slow.
But I don't blame you. For someone who believes the world is 6000 year s old, even canned tuna tastes like old fermented bible cheese.
1] What was your point of three hands then? Simple dialogue? I asked why would a whole third hand develop at one time when you said it takes decades and millions of years. I then asked why would natural selection, mother nature, evolution take the nub (the beginning of a third hand) and gradually produce a hand over millions of years? It would serve no purpose for millions of years before it became useful for the survival of the fittest, so what inside the random chaos of natural selection, mother nature, and evolution would enable the nub to continue to grow and spread to the entirety of species until they became a new species? Then why would it stop at only one hand and not immediately start on a fourth hand?
2] What does natural selection say about the people dying of starvation?
3] What does survival of the fittest say about the people dying of starvation?
Honestly, you are presenting the ideas of evolution, not actually proving it. If it was so easy for you to prove there would not be any scientists alive that would not accept it as you do. Interestingly there is.
Sigh, forget the three hands argument. You don't get it, its too steep for you.
Second point: From a biological point of view, there are several factors to be looked into when we look at starvation. Populations starve when there is too many predators and too little food.
It is a form of natural selection/survival of the fittest, unfortunately, and it is a tad cruel, leaving those who can survive to irk out a living (Those that survive have the necessary requisites then, to do so). There is not much to say, besides the fact that mother nature is a bitch.
Like I told you, scientists disagree on many things. Think of it this way: An aircraft is made up of technicians and engineers. Two engineers may disagree with the methods to retrofit an aircraft, but they don't throw out the idea that the airplane can't fly.
Got it?
You claim that I haven't "proven" anything. you are right, actually. All the examples i quoted were discovered by other scientists, and I find them to be rational.
Evolution is a natural way of looking at mother nature without invoking the supernatural. The evidence is overwhelming, of which there is no doubt.
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/creation.shtml
Christianity vs Real Science
Well.......if you want to believe that, good for you.
As for me, I will take science anyday. We own almost every luxury and convenience today to science.
As for your website, ha ha......I really do not want to waste time commenting on you.
The thought of Noah putting all the land animals on earth on one stupid putty boat, and that the Grand Canyon was somehow cut by a deluge of water from the great flood.......forgive me for laughing too hard........ha ha ha ha ha.....
Seriously, you don't think any serious scientist will agree to this bullshit?
Actually, you are right on one thing: Science does indeed play the role of God.
When humans don't understand the nature of a certain phenomena, we attribute it to gods and demons. As science begins to unravel the truth about the strange phenomena around us, it replaces this myth.
Imagine a Christian living in a plague ravaged European city. He is going to believe that Man has incurred God's wrath. Science, however, tells an entirely different story altogether.
When a parent sends a child to the doctor, the doctor is actually challenging God. Think about it. God inflicts disease upon the child to kill him or her. The doctor defies god by curing him or her.
Blasphemy? Hell yeah, and its all good!
Post a Comment