Macroevolution

[scott 3]

Ive been noticing this for a long time, evolutionist rely on microevolution, to produce different life forms gradually, over millions of years.

 

I believe this problem stems from a misunderstanding of microevolution itself. Can it be proven that NEW information is created when an animal gets a NEW trait, or is this simply, a re arrangment of the genome. Thus not really producing any new traits, just rearranging it to the way it makes that trait, which was already there in the first place.

 

Now, can we really know thats what DNA is doing or not, can we know if its new or just rearranged information.

 

Offcourse you could say, either way DNA could rearrange itself to create a totally NEW creature. But do we really know enough about how this works?

[A.Sphere 6]

Ive been noticing this for a long time, evolutionist rely on microevolution, to produce different life forms gradually, over millions of years.

 

I believe this problem stems from a misunderstanding of microevolution itself.  Can it be proven that NEW information is created when an animal gets a NEW trait, or is this simply, a re arrangment of the genome. Thus not really producing any new traits, just rearranging it to the way it makes that trait, which was already there in the first place.

 

Now, can we really know thats what DNA is doing or not, can we know if its new or just rearranged information.

 

Offcourse you could say, either way DNA could rearrange itself to create a totally NEW creature.  But do we really know enough about how this works?

19616[/snapback]

 

Are copying errors really a "rearrangement of the genome"? What scientific principle distinguishes macro-evolution from micro-evolution? Show me what the hurdle is in the literature.

[scott 3]

Well, i really cant speak for macro evolution, because it hasnt been witnessed, but yes a typing error could be corrected simply by rearranging the lettering.

 

Macro evolution is the evolution above the level of species, hmmm, well it seems to me, that most evolutionist consider evolution simply because over time, microevolution will lead to evolution outside the level of species.

 

Simply put, if evolutionist today rely on microevolution to prove macro evolution, then macro evolution really has no place in anything period, simply because over time, things will gradually evolve from microevolution.

 

I guess this is basically what im saying.

 

Also about the rearangment of the genome, if this is true, then evolution and creation would be at a stalemate, since no new information was created to make the trait. It would also mean that DNA itself is already complete, and ready to rearrange itself at will to adapt to the environment its in. It would also mean if its complete, that it would give more of a possiblity that it was created.

 

Anyways i believe that DNA was created no matter what, because simply by my skeptic nature, i dont believe that things just poof into existance like the whole universe, atoms, or anything that has design to it. No matter what, DNA is information, and is obviously in code form, because if it wasnt, we wouldnt be able to produce offspring.

 

Brings another thing to mention, being a code, it probably is, Why? because if it wasnt specially coded for humans, our children might turn out being half moose, or

half turtle.

[TempestTossed 0]

Ive been noticing this for a long time, evolutionist rely on microevolution, to produce different life forms gradually, over millions of years.

 

I believe this problem stems from a misunderstanding of microevolution itself.  Can it be proven that NEW information is created when an animal gets a NEW trait, or is this simply, a re arrangment of the genome. Thus not really producing any new traits, just rearranging it to the way it makes that trait, which was already there in the first place.

 

Now, can we really know thats what DNA is doing or not, can we know if its new or just rearranged information.

 

Offcourse you could say, either way DNA could rearrange itself to create a totally NEW creature.  But do we really know enough about how this works?

19616[/snapback]

The "no new information" thing is a very common objection, and it has a very serious dysfunction: information is not defined. There is no universal definition of "information" within the study of genetics, because it is presumed that the gene code was not written by anyone. Of course creationists DO believe that the gene code was "written" by someone, and so it is their responsibility to offer a definition of genetic "information" so that information can be objectively quantified and their claim can be tested. Without a definition, then the claim is simply word salad. I have asked the skeptics to offer a definition. The intuitive way to quantify information would be very simple: just count the number of nucleotides (U, C, A, G), and more nucleotides means more information. This means that the genetic information contained in a population of two organisms increases by 50% if S@xual reproduction produces one more organism. But creationists don't seem to think this counts. If so, then it is not enough to give ambiguous objections like, "The child genome is just a copy of the parents." No, not really. The child genome is a genetic recombination of both parent genomes, a recombination relying on random elements that will allow differences among siblings, with some random mutations thrown in: some insertions, some replacements, some deletions. What creationists need are the specifics. Find a way to objectively quantify information that makes sense, and then give us an example with the numbers! That is all there is to it!

 

EDIT: Perhaps my argument was geared more toward the common "information never increases" objection, but I think maybe the "no new information" argument is slightly different. And a similar dysfunction is present: "new information" is not defined. Nobody on Earth has the same genome as I do. For that matter, every genome except clones and identical twins are unique. Does my own conception not count as "new information"? If not, then you will need to back up your claim with a definition of "new information" and appropriate evidence. Making the claim without that essential definition is, again, word salad.

[A.Sphere 6]

Well, i really cant speak for macro evolution, because it hasnt been witnessed, but yes a typing error could be corrected simply by rearranging the lettering.

I don't understand - can you clarify?

 

Macro evolution is the evolution above the level of species, hmmm, well it seems to me, that most evolutionist consider evolution simply because over time, microevolution will lead to evolution outside the level of species.

Right - lots of microevolutions make a macroevolution just as seconds make hours. What would prevent that?

 

Also about the rearangment of the genome, if this is true, then evolution and creation would be at a stalemate, since no new information was created to make the trait.

What do you mean by no new information?

 

It would also mean that DNA itself is already complete, and ready to rearrange itself at will to adapt to the environment its in. It would also mean if its complete, that it would give more of a possiblity that it was created.

How so?

 

Anyways i believe that DNA was created no matter what, because simply by my skeptic nature, i dont believe that things just poof into existance like the whole universe, atoms, or anything that has design to it. No matter what, DNA is information, and is obviously in code form, because if it wasnt, we wouldnt be able to produce offspring.

Your skeptic nature led you to believe that an invisible all powerful entity poofed it into existence instead right? My skeptical nature begs the question - what poofed the creator into existence. There is no rational answer. Of course by claiming scientists believe that things poofed into existence you are either exposing your lack of scientific knowledge or you are building strawmen.

 

Brings another thing to mention, being a code, it probably is, Why? because if it wasnt specially coded for humans, our children might turn out being half moose, or

half turtle.

How do I go about creating one of these half moose half turtle type creatures?

[scott 3]

Offcourse, You could say how did God poof into existance, but its a stalemate PERIOD trying to debate atoms just randomly appearing along with all the matter in the universe... STALEMATE

 

Atheist always like to say information is an undifined term, well actually information is obviously a defined term, i will not say this again, look in a dictionary. DUH. And dont get me started on absolutes, sigh.

 

Now, we see the results of reproduction, but evolutionist nor creationist really KNOW how DNA does what it does, I mean this at a molecular level, where the unseen happens, and the reason we debate on this subject. Because if we really knew what was going on, we wouldnt be debating.

 

Also, DNA could be complete, in all living things, no one knows. Also NOONE knows whether God created DNA or if DNA was randomly poofed into existance by the Fairy turtle moose god of the atheist. We just dont know which in turn = another STALEMATE.

 

But you could say macroevolution has obviously been witnessed in the layers of the earth because theyve been documented to contain specific layers, such as cambrian layers, jurassic layers, and so on and so forth. None has been found in perfect order, actually theres really no physical proof that they are in any type of order.

 

Remember fossils are an evolutionist worst enemy, its the truth set in stone, just read what i posted in did dinosaurs live with man.

 

You see, microevolution will always be defined by NEW pseudo information by evolutionist, and rearranged information by creationist. Why? because we reason by faith on this issue, mainly because we dont have much hands on evidence to dispute such things, you can say we do, but neither you, nor i can actually know IF that DNA is rearranging or building new information.

 

Just remember, your a thinking, breathing human being, whether you like it or not, you can REASON. So choose wisely, for we are in a time of technology, a time where man thinks himself god, and a time where man can be proud of his own acheivements and relax and say.... theres no proof of God, we are techinically advanced, evolving humans ( even though its only the technology evolving).

[A.Sphere 6]

Offcourse, You could say how did God poof into existance, but its a stalemate PERIOD trying to debate  atoms just randomly appearing along with all the matter in the universe... STALEMATE

 

Atheist always like to say information is an undifined term, well actually information is obviously a defined term, i will not say this again, look in a dictionary. DUH. And dont get me started on absolutes, sigh.

 

Now, we see the results of reproduction, but evolutionist nor creationist really KNOW how DNA does what it does, I mean this at a molecular level, where the unseen happens, and the reason we debate on this subject. Because if we really knew what was going on, we wouldnt be debating.

 

Also, DNA could be complete, in all living things, no one knows.  Also NOONE knows whether God created DNA or if DNA was randomly poofed into existance by the Fairy turtle moose god of the atheist. We just dont know which in turn = another STALEMATE.

 

But you could say macroevolution has obviously been witnessed in the layers of the earth because theyve been documented to contain specific layers, such as cambrian layers, jurassic layers, and so on and so forth. None has been found in perfect order, actually theres really no physical proof that they are in any type of order.

 

Remember fossils are an evolutionist worst enemy, its the truth set in stone, just read what i posted in did dinosaurs live with man.

 

You see, microevolution will always be defined by NEW pseudo information by evolutionist, and rearranged information by creationist.  Why? because we reason by faith on this issue, mainly because we dont have much hands on evidence to dispute such things, you can say we do, but neither you, nor i can actually know IF that DNA is rearranging or building new information.

 

Just remember, your a thinking, breathing human being, whether you like it or not, you can REASON. So choose wisely, for we are in a time of technology, a time where man thinks himself god, and a time where man can be proud of his own acheivements and relax and say.... theres no proof of God, we are techinically advanced, evolving humans ( even though its only the technology evolving).

19631[/snapback]

You seem to be inserting "no one knows" when you should be inserting "I don't know".

[scott 3]

Indeed A. sphere, you dont know, and thats why your an atheist.

[A.Sphere 6]

Indeed A. sphere, you dont know, and thats why your an atheist.

19635[/snapback]

Wow that was deep. If you insert the phrase "I don't know" you are referring to yourself - not me. If you were referring to me you would insert "A.Sphere doesn't know". Basic stuff really.

[scott 3]

A.sphere, its called being original, i could have said that, and i was about to, but, i didnt want to just merely copy what you said, because then id be doing exactly what you were doing.

[A.Sphere 6]

A.sphere, its called being original, i could have said that, and i was about to, but, i didnt want to just merely copy what you said, because then id be doing exactly what you were doing.

19644[/snapback]

You and I have entirely different opinions on what being original means. Your word play is something an average 5 year old might pull. I wasn't joking when I said that it is only you who doesn't understand certain things and not scientists. You know very little about science and yet you continue to proclaim that science doesn't have answers for things that it clearly does. Either that - or your statements are simply ill posed.

[scott 3]

A.sphere, your opinion of original is completely different from mine, mine is this...

 

Going out and digging for evidence, testable evidence, which i do find, lots of the time. Also, going out, building classic and modern musclecars, which is what i do, i build, with my hands, welder and a paint gun. Original cars that you will not see designed like anyone elses on the road. Built with my blood, sweat, and tears. Also i find my fossils with my own hands, i dont just sit behind a computer and wish i had testable evidence. The fossils i have, and have seen might totally change your world view. If you really want to convince someone, youve got to present the evidence, the cold hard facts, the evidence which you hold in your hand.

 

I, yes I will do this, im not so sure about you, have you even got the stamina to get up, go out and find the truth with your tools, and bare hands. Me, ive got evidence, i searched for it, i found it. I will be presenting it. This is what i believe is wrong with the world today, all talk, but no legitament proof, to back up a single thing people say these days.

 

Also in the world of drag racing its a fact that you MUST TEST yourself and your cars abilities to run a decent time. Youve got to have the right fuel mixture, the right tire pressure, the right amount of boost whether it be turbos, or superchargers. You have got to have all of this tuned just right. All this adds up as evidence, that will be proven to blow the competition away. The race, is the TESTING of the car and its abilities. You can call a tune your theory.... Which must be proven on by testing, on the track, because remember its only a theory until its proven.

 

So lets see whos got the right tune, have you got on hand evidence? Is your engine tuned to the beating? This is what it all boils down to, the RACE, yes, we shall post our evidence, and not hide behind our computers just merely chanting about some theory or tune we have and talking smack about whos faster. WE will run this race, if you agree. Over the next course of a few weeks we shall post our findings and run the race. Will this be a 24 hour lemans race, or 7 second quarter mile drag race...... only the evidence will tell, and whos got the best tune.

 

So ask yourself, ARE YOU READY?

 

PS: sneaky peat Jesus nitrous bottles will be added to my tune, so just be prepared with something, ready to run, and original.

[A.Sphere 6]

A.sphere, your opinion of original is completely different from mine, mine is this...

 

Going out and digging for evidence, testable evidence, which i do find, lots of the time. Also, going out, building classic and modern musclecars, which is what i do, i build, with my hands, welder and a paint gun.  Original cars that you will not see designed like anyone elses on the road. Built with my blood, sweat, and tears. Also i find my fossils with my own hands, i dont just sit behind a computer and wish i had testable evidence. The fossils i have, and have seen might totally change your world view. If you really want to convince someone, youve got to present the evidence, the cold hard facts, the evidence which you hold in your hand.

 

I, yes I will do this, im not so sure about you, have you even got the stamina to get up, go out and find the truth with your tools, and bare hands. Me, ive got evidence, i searched for it, i found it.  I will be presenting it. This is what i believe is wrong with the world today, all talk, but no legitament proof, to back up a single thing people say these days.

 

Also in the world of drag racing its a fact that you MUST TEST yourself and your cars abilities to run a decent time. Youve got to have the right fuel mixture, the right tire pressure, the right amount of boost whether it be turbos, or superchargers. You have got to have all of this tuned just right. All this adds up as evidence, that will be proven to blow the competition away. The race, is the TESTING of the car and its abilities. You can call a tune your theory.... Which must be proven on by testing, on the track, because remember its only a theory until its proven.

 

So lets see whos got the right tune, have you got on hand evidence? Is your engine tuned to the beating?  This is what it all boils down to, the RACE, yes, we shall post our evidence, and not hide behind our computers just merely chanting about some theory or tune we have and talking smack about whos faster.  WE will run this race, if you agree. Over the next course of a few weeks we shall post our findings and run the race. Will this be a 24 hour lemans race, or 7 second quarter mile drag race...... only the evidence will tell, and whos got the best tune.

 

So ask yourself, ARE YOU READY?

 

PS: sneaky peat Jesus nitrous bottles will be added to my tune, so just be prepared with something, ready to run, and original.

19652[/snapback]

 

I can go to my local library and read a peer reviewed journal by scientists working in whatever particular field I want to read about. I can see the scientific method in action - I can watch as they use their new knowledge practically. My own personal research concerns black holes: and I am involved in both experimental and theoretical research.

 

Are you asking me if I have a trilobite in my desk drawer? The answer is no. But I have seen fossils first hand - I have touched them. If you are an amateur fossil hunter and you have fossils that "would change my mind" then by all means publish a paper in a journal so that it can be peer reviewed by the experts and a consensus can be reached - that is the way of science. If you can't write a paper well enough give the fossils to someone who can. If it is presented in a clear, concise, and logical way you should have no problem convincing anyone.

 

What race? If you mean science - I do research everyday at work (okay sometimes I just play video games but I am supposed to be doing research). I really only have the ability to talk with confidence about physics. If you want to have a formal debate on biology you should go with the other guys. If you want to talk black holes - I am all for it. I have limited knowledge about biology because I am not a biologist. I trust the consensus in the biological world to the same extent that I trust the consensus in the Dentistry world concerning the identification of cavities. I don't work on biology 8 hours a day.

 

By the way can you drop the race car analogy - it isn't at all clear. From what I can gather you want us both to race around the world collecting fossils for some sort of competition and then post them on this forum? Can I use a zeppelin instead of a muscle car to get around? Oh...and can we have minions?

[scott 3]

Tempest, id have to say, i totally agree, why, because your right. Information inside the genome, really hasnt been defined, hence why we are debating on it.

 

Now im starting to believe a little more on the information is new side, because now that i think about the original post, i hadnt yet remembered what happens when brother and sister produce offspring, since no new information or similar DNA is used then this would explain the reason why their children have more problems.

 

Strange, but now that I think about it, I may have this whole process mixed up, simply because, how do we see if 2 completely different parents dont have rearranged DNA, and by using this DNA we create something new. I guess what im seeing here is this, it creates a new human. Ah, why would it be rearranged DNA, i think new DNA is a better idea.

 

Also another thing about being different and unique as a human, I believe God gave each human a unique soul, by which we inhabit the body in which we live.

 

Edit: Im trying to learn how to use the quoting system so i dont make so many posts, and so that it will be a little easier to comprehend.

[scott 3]

A.sphere ill drop the race care analogy, i think you figured it out quite well. Also i think i asked a little too much in that post alone, and seeing that its completely off topic of macroevolution. It just stems back from my getting confused about making theories, and proving theories as scientific fact.

 

Sorry for the confusion.

[Chaz 0]

I would spend this post discussing the flaws in the concept of seperating evolution into both "micro" and "macro", and how the genome does not need to created "new information" in order to increase in complexity, but there are far easier ways of learning about this stuff than from me.

 

I reccommend this video on the subject, in which an evolutionist dissects a creationist cartoon. He actually answers a lot of the questions which you posed, and does it in a pretty entertaining and easily understood way:

 

[scott 3]

Thanks chaz, maybe that will help me out a bit, also, i feel really bad now that i just saw that i spelled car wrong. I read my post again, and I cant stop laughing, oh well.

[BVZ 0]

Ive been noticing this for a long time, evolutionist rely on microevolution, to produce different life forms gradually, over millions of years.

 

I believe this problem stems from a misunderstanding of microevolution itself.  Can it be proven that NEW information is created when an animal gets a NEW trait, or is this simply, a re arrangment of the genome. Thus not really producing any new traits, just rearranging it to the way it makes that trait, which was already there in the first place.

 

This depends on how you choose to measure information. A new trait can either increase the information, or decrease the information, or leave the information content constant, depending on how you choose to measure information.

 

I often wonder why creationists are this obsessed with 'information' and wether it increases or decreases. What does that matter?

 

It makes to difference to the theory of evolution.

 

If you think information content is important, could you please explain why you think so?

 

Now, can we really know thats what DNA is doing or not, can we know if its new or just rearranged information.

 

Again, that depends on how you choose to define and measure information.

And again, why is this important?

 

Offcourse you could say, either way DNA could rearrange itself to create a totally NEW creature.  But do we really know enough about how this works?

19616[/snapback]

What do you mean by 'new creature'?

 

It is important for you to understand that the theory of evolution does not say new creatures appear. What it DOES say is that existing creatures are modified until they don't resembe the one you started with anymore. Is this what you are referring to when you say 'new creature'?

 

If this is what you are referring to, then yes, its pretty well understood.

[Guest shpongle]

Again, that depends on how you choose to define and measure information.

I've encountered this dozens of times. To which my response is simply:

 

1) Define information as it relates to the genome.

2) Quantify the smallest unit measure of information (again as it relates to the genome).

3) Demonstrate what would constitute an increase or decrease per unit of information as per #2.

 

To date, every single time I ask #1 I get a different answer. Oddly, no one ever seems to reference Spetner's work, which is the basis for AIG's current "information can't increase" stance. (Of course, Spetner's work has been debunked, but that's besides the point.)

 

And I've yet to get an answer for #2 and #3.

 

And in real biology literature I've run into various definitions of "information" depending on the context in which it is applied. Which has led to me to believe that talking about "information" in the context of genetics is pretty arbitrary and not entirely useful in a broad scope.

[MRC_Hans 0]

*snip*

I often wonder why creationists are this obsessed with 'information' and wether it increases or decreases.

*snip*

I can tell you why: Somebody wrote an article that supposedly refutes evolution by claiming that random mutation does not create new information (in DNA), which is arguably needed in order to support evolution.

 

Then the discussion usually drones on at great lenght with the resident evolutionist letting themseves be lured into discussing whether one or the other definintion of 'information' is valid for DNA, and/or which brand of information theory should be used. Been there, done that.

 

All of that clouds the real issue, namely that the basic claim is wrong: No matter which definition you use, random change can create new information.

 

Hans

[MRC_Hans 0]

Likewise, the micro/macroevolution debate builds on a fallacy. Well, two, actually:

 

The most observable is a heavy case of moving the goalposts. Whenever some evolutionary event is pointed out it is immidiately classified by Creationists as micorovolution and thus non-applicable. The most extreme even go to the level of genus, meaning that the evolution of e.g. all the bovine species is just microevolution.

 

The basic fallacy, however, is the false dictonomy inherent in the argument: It is really not a question of choosing between two forms of evolution; the difference between micro and macroevolution is simply an after the fact, qualitative distinction. It says something about how profound the difference between two organisms is, it says nothing about the process that brought about the difference.

 

Hans

[Guest shpongle]

The basic fallacy, however, is the false dictonomy inherent in the argument: It is really not a question of choosing between two forms of evolution; the difference between micro and macroevolution is simply an after the fact, qualitative distinction. It says something about how profound the difference between two organisms is, it says nothing about the process that brought about the difference.

Actually, there is one important destinction between macro and micro evolution. Micro evolution is the evolution that occurs within a breeding population. Macro evolution is the evolution that occurs between breeding populations.

 

So arguably there could be mechanistic differences based on that.

[MRC_Hans 0]

Actually, there is one important destinction between macro and micro evolution.  Micro evolution is the evolution that occurs within a breeding population.  Macro evolution is the evolution that occurs between breeding populations.

 

So arguably there could be mechanistic differences based on that.

20600[/snapback]

I'm not sure I understand your definition.

 

Hans

[Guest shpongle]

I'm not sure I understand your definition.

 

Hans

20617[/snapback]

I'll do up a diagram tomorrow that might illustrate the point better.

[deadlock 3]

Likewise, the micro/macroevolution debate builds on a fallacy. Well, two, actually:

 

The most observable is a heavy case of moving the goalposts. Whenever some evolutionary event is pointed out it is immidiately classified by Creationists as micorovolution and thus non-applicable. The most extreme even go to the level of genus, meaning that the evolution of e.g. all the bovine species is just microevolution.

 

The basic fallacy, however, is the false dictonomy inherent in the argument: It is really not a question of choosing between two forms of evolution; the difference between micro and macroevolution is simply an after the fact, qualitative distinction. It says something about how profound the difference between two organisms is, it says nothing about the process that brought about the difference.

 

Hans

20590[/snapback]

I can see another fallacy here.Macro-evolution is an extrapolation fallacy of micro-evolution.