Macro Evolution Verses Micro Evolution

This has become the boringest forum on ATS.

The same people on both sides, saying exactly the same things they've said before in a hundred threads.

I don't need to read any of the posts any more. All I have to do is look at the avatars.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Have you read the article that the ICR is quote mining from, or do you not check your sources? Here's the very next sentence after the ICR quote:

What is not so clear, however, is whether microevolution is totally decoupled from macroevolution: the two can more probably be seen as a continuum with a notable overlap.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
Just for Barcs

Microevolution refers to varieties within a given type. Change happens within a group, but the descendant is clearly of the same type as the ancestor. This might better be called variation, or adaptation, but the changes are "horizontal" in effect, not "vertical." Such changes might be accomplished by "natural selection," in which a trait within the present variety is selected as the best for a given set of conditions, or accomplished by "artificial selection," such as when dog breeders produce a new breed of dog.

The small or microevolutionary changes occur by recombining existing genetic material within the group. As Gregor Mendel observed with his breeding studies on peas in the mid 1800's, there are natural limits to genetic change. A population of organisms can vary only so much. What causes macroevolutionary change?

Genetic mutations produce new genetic material, but do these lead to macroevolution? No truly useful mutations have ever been observed. The one most cited is the disease sickle-cell anemia, which provides an enhanced resistance to malaria. How could the occasionally deadly disease of SSA ever produce big-scale change?

Evolutionists assume that the small, horizontal microevolutionary changes (which are observed) lead to large, vertical macroevolutionary changes (which are never observed). This philosophical leap of faith lies at the eve of evolution thinking.

A review of any biology textbook will include a discussion of microevolutionary changes. This list will include the variety of beak shape among the finches of the Galapagos Islands, Darwin's favorite example. Always mentioned is the peppered moth in England, a population of moths whose dominant color shifted during the Industrial Revolution, when soot covered the trees. Insect populations become resistant to DDT, and germs become resistant to antibiotics. While in each case, observed change was limited to microevolution, the inference is that these minor changes can be extrapolated over many generations to macroevolution.

In 1980 about 150 of the world's leading evolutionary theorists gathered at the University of Chicago for a conference entitled "Macroevolution." Their task: "to consider the mechanisms that underlie the origin of species" (Lewin, Science vol. 210, pp. 883-887). "The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution . . . the answer can be given as a clear, No."

Thus the scientific observations support the creation tenet that each basic type is separate and distinct from all others, and that while variation is inevitable, macroevolution does not and did not happen.

So these are your own people saying "NO" to it, now who is being intellectually dishonest ?

Without linking your source material, I would wager the intellectual dishonesty is coming from your end right now. As a former Anthropologist I can say quite succinctly what "my people" say regarding the matter. I'll try to make it easy for you though... If you believe in 'micro' but not 'macro' it's the equivalent of believing in inches while simultaneously refusing to acknowledge that 12 inches equals 1 foot and that the scale simply continues to increase. The differences between the 2 terms is nothing more than a matter of scale. They aren't 2 different processes.

a reply to: peter vlar

What is evolution on a small scale vs. evolution on a large scale?

a reply to: peter vlar

Interesting, but another poster on ATS said it would be more like 1 mm verses 1000 km, in the distance scale.
From that perspective, on the ground, I can see 1mm, I can't see 1000 km. And it's a huge difference.
You have faith in yourself and your scientific peers in being able to call what is in that area without actually seeing it, I don't.

Same faith needed to believe in God doing it, so I figure we are all even on the faith count.

a reply to: rnaa

Actually, the point about the hybrids is valid with regards to this topic; however, the op fails to realize this damages his/her own position because for micro amd macro to be redefined as separate processes, the two separate species coild not successfully mate.

How is it that these people are incapable of understanding that small, incremental changes over time add up?

The whole idea of evolution is descent with modification. That means tiny changes each generation. By splitting it up into micro and macro evolution you are applying an artificial and arbitrary delineation where none exists.

You believe in micro evolution? Congratulations, you believe in evolution! Because it's the same damned thing.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

A really good example of macro is the modern whale. It still has the remains of it's pelvis bone and flanges which indicates that it was once a land walking animal. Over millions of years and thousands of adaptations which are recorded in many fossils, it has gone through many stages to become the animal we see and know today as one of the many species of whales.

a reply to: Astyanax

This has become the boringest forum on ATS.

The same people on both sides, saying exactly the same things they've said before in a hundred threads.

I agree.

Let somebody else do the 'splainin.

a reply to: Woodcarver

See I don't buy for 2 seconds the blue whale ever walked on land, nor did his predecessors.
That's why I don't believe in these huge genetic shifts that radically alter what the animal is.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

See I don't buy for 2 seconds the blue whale ever walked on land, nor did his predecessors. That's why I don't believe in these huge genetic shifts that radically alter what the animal is.

You are arguing yet again from ignorance. You have in the past expressed your intent of learning, but this will be almost impossible if your indulging in the same old tired creationist nonsense arguments. Instead, you need to continue to learn. No, it is not simple, but it is necessary.
Perhaps you should limit your research into looking for the craziest loon you can find on the Internet and research "real" scientific findings? In this way you can actually "learn" and not just merely "believe".

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: peter vlar

What is evolution on a small scale vs. evolution on a large scale?

Evolution!

I got one for you...

What is rain on a small scale vs. rain on a large scale?

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Source please. You keep quoting external sources without links. That's goes against ATS terms of service. Please source your quotes if you want people to actually read them or take them seriously.

See I don't buy for 2 seconds the blue whale ever walked on land, nor did his predecessors.

When in doubt, just deny. We know the mantra by now. It's just a shame that your only argument is "I don't believe it". So you believe god put a pelvis and remnants of legs in the whale for fun?

originally posted by: Astyanax
This has become the boringest forum on ATS.

The same people on both sides, saying exactly the same things they've said before in a hundred threads.

I don't need to read any of the posts any more. All I have to do is look at the avatars.

So true. I'm about to take a break from it all myself. The comedic factor is definitely wearing off and that's what's kept me in these threads for so long.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: peter vlar

What is evolution on a small scale vs. evolution on a large scale?

Exactly the same.

a reply to: flyingfish

No one's ever seen a lake form in real time, or a river give birth to a rock, therefore macroflooding is an atheist fantasy.

originally posted by: flyingfish
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

See I don't buy for 2 seconds the blue whale ever walked on land, nor did his predecessors. That's why I don't believe in these huge genetic shifts that radically alter what the animal is.

You are arguing yet again from ignorance.

Specifically Argument from Personal Incredulity since it represents a lack in understanding rather than a lack of information.

originally posted by: flyingfish
What is rain on a small scale vs. rain on a large scale?

I'm not sure.