Is "adaptation" or "micro-evolution" a good counter theory to "Evolution"?

page: 1
5

log in

join

posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 05:13 PM
link   
This idea of adaptation or micro/macro-evolution is a new idea that I've seen come out from skeptics over the evolution theory. Personally I view it as another re-branding attempt of creationism (given the fact that Intelligent design had received negative press over the last decade). But putting aside whatever agenda these new supporters of adaptation /micro-evolution may have, does this idea have the potential to take on the theory of Evolution?

The theory of Evolution does not discount adaptation, however adaptation discounts evolution. Adaptation or Micro/Macro-evolution is the idea that animals, organisms do in fact experience changes in response to their environments, changes that do at times change their physical appearances as well as internal appearances. However the idea of "adaption" or "micro-evolution" dismisses this idea that all animals, organisms, have branched off one another from a common ancestor. One person put the idea of adaption or micro-evolution in simpler terms when comparing it to the theory of evolution:

"Evolution is the idea that all animals, organisms, share a common ancestor, that they branched off of and evolved over a period of time, much like the branches of a tree. The tree of life gives us a good picture of what the theory of evolution is about. However "adaptation" or "micro-evolution" proposes that organisms have only minor changes in response to their environments and do not branch off from one another, much like a forest of trees, as opposed to one tree of life"

Here's an article, the best I could find at this point, defining the differences between the idea of adaptation in on itself compared to evolution:


Adaptation refers to the process wherein certain groups or individuals change their ways in order to be better suited to their environment and habitat. This is change is needed so that they can survive and maintain normal functioning in their community. For example, during winters or cold days, individuals learn to alter their homes and personal clothes to be able to live through the chilling temperatures.

Evolution, though, takes a long time. It is a process in which the genetic structure and physical anatomy change in relation to the changes happening in the environment. It does not occur overnight, but invokes generations in order to turn out into the best being suitable.


Read more: Difference Between Adaptation and Evolution | Difference Between | Adaptation vs Evolution www.differencebetween.net...

Now the exact definition of adaptation or micro-evolution has not been defined, I'm not aware of any peer reviewed articles, possibly because the idea is really only held by a small minority, those whom had supported the Intelligent design idea at one point. I'd be curious if any fellow ATSers whom believe in the idea of adaption care to explain it to us what they view it as? Some of the many questions I have below are in regards to the idea of adaptation:

1. Does adaption still include idea that species evolve into other species? Given the fact that we have such obvious links between different species such as domesticated dogs and wolves, or domesticate cats and wild felines or big cats. Are there "bubbles" of species within nature that are only related to each other?

2. Considering that many who push the idea of adaptation or micro-evolution dismiss the idea that humans share a common ancestor with modern apes or monkeys, does this mean that from adaptation, humans just appeared all on their own many thousands of years ago? If they did not branch out from other animal species, how did they come to be? Did they appear by Gods hand? Or did God adapt them from something else?

3. Considering that the idea of adaptation or micro-evolution dismisses the idea that animals, organisms, share a common ancestor, how did all these species, or bubbles of species" come to exist with one another? Or is that still being worked out by supporters of this alternative explanation to the origins of life? Did they all exist at once? Did humans exist with dinosaurs, considering they are in no way related to them or any other animals? Or doe the idea of adaption support the idea that the appeared later on by some unknown means later again?

4. Considering that animal species and organisms are not related to one another at all, considering that branched all on their own, how do they share common genetic relations much like those of the apes and humans? Is that because of a common environment that just coincidentally made these genetic similarities appear? Remember that we're not focusing on the God fact here as "adaptation" or "micro-evolution" has nothing to do with creationism or Intelligent design, supposedly.
edit on 29-1-2013 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 05:39 PM
link   
I just say them: show the evidences for this hypotheses and only after that we can talk... just babbling about "I have a theory" (popular sense) don't bring anything useful to us.
edit on 29/1/13 by blackcube because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


You seem to have just seperated out different mechanisms of the TOE and labled them as something different, not a part of Evolutionary Theory. Not you I guess, but these skeptics. ID and Creationist like to claim that these are seperate entities, but they all work together to make up Evolutionary Theory.

Here is the wiki on TOE and you will see that those concepts are accepted mechanisms of evolution, regardless of what the detractors say:
Evolutionary Theory

Unless I'm just missing your point, you are asking if the mechanisms of evolution are a counter against evolution?



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Also, Macro-evolution is simply the weight of years and years of Micro-evolution. Micro + millions of years = Macro. Adaption is specically talking about conditions (environmental) and the changes that occur due to these pressures. Micro, which can be due to environmental conditions, also includes scheduled genetic mutations and their effect . . . add millions of years and you get Macro.

It's all part of the same thing . . . and there have been plenty of peer reviewed papers on these subjects, only none of them go against TOE. They all support it.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 11:53 AM
link   
I think this is just another way of putting the argument that some animal can adapt to its environment but it never stops being that animal.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by RandyBragg
 


Yep that tired creationist claim . . . Not going to debate you on semantics. There is no seperation it's all one process. The terms are merely there to denote time scale and scope.


These outcomes of evolution are sometimes divided into macroevolution, which is evolution that occurs at or above the level of species, such as extinction and speciation and microevolution, which is smaller evolutionary changes, such as adaptations, within a species or population.[142] In general, macroevolution is regarded as the outcome of long periods of microevolution.[143] Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one – the difference is simply the time involved.[


The fact that you want to debate one term and apply the common creationist argument that there is some sort of difference between the two, shows me you know little of how evolution works. Feel free to look into the mountains of evidence and papers available about speciation, the genome, or morphology in the fossil record and I will be happy to answer any questions you have. However, there is no debate if your retort is . . . there is no evidence to support speciation. There is . . . look into it and argue on the evidence.

Your incedulitity or misrepresentations about what evolutions states or the mechanisms involved aren't worthy of an actuall debate.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by solomons path
 


It appears that you are just looking for someone to argue with, good luck with that.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 01:04 PM
link   
Micro and macro evolution are not separate processes. Evolution is evolution, there is no separate mechanism needed for long term change. You just need a lot of time. Creationists try to claim that they are different to somehow imply that scientists are just guessing about long term evolution. They are wrong. Genetic mutations sorted by natural selection is what evolution is defined as. It doesn't change on the long term. The changes just add up over time. The earth constantly changes and life either adapts or dies out. 95% of life today could not survive on the earth 100 million years ago, the environment was that much different.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 02:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Well lets see here...

When cells divide and DNA is replicated what happens? new DNA is created with some fragments being lost and some regions of code becoming error ridden and mutated.

Is there any natural process that adds new increased genetic information to the DNA chain under cell division and replication to make it more complex (as evolution is meant to be from simple to complex right)?

The answer is no.


Those genes that control key early developmental processes are involved in the establishment of the basic body plan. Mutations in these genes will usually be extremely disadvantageous, and it is conceivable that they are always so.
Wallace Arthur, 1997, The Origin of Animal Body Plans, p.14


Does the natural variation in the DNA code causing mutation increase the survival rates of the population at large? No, they are disadvantageous....this is no simple to complex (thus no 'evolution' just devolution. This is a complex parent breaking down to a lesser form with multiple expressions of the lesser form from the original.

The noted palaeontologist Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard pointed out that:-

"The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change ........ All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt" (Gould, 1977).


Dr T S Kemp, Curator of Zoological collections, Oxford University said:-

"In virtually all cases a new taxon appears for the first time in the fossil record with most definitive features already present, and practically no known stem-group forms." (Kemp, 1999).


Evolutionist David Raup, Curator of Geology at Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History said:-

"The evidence we find in the geological record is not nearly as compatible with Darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be ....We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than in Darwin's time ... so Darwin's problem has not been alleviated" (Raup, Field museum of Natural History Bulletin).


No intermediates...


"A large number of well trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and paleontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is. This probably comes from the oversimplification inevitable in secondary sources: low level textbooks, semi-popular articles, and so on. Also, there is probably some wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin , his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks...".
Raup, D. (1981). New Scientist, Vol. 90. Vol. 90. p. 832


Richard Dawkins speaking of the Cambrian fauna commented:

"And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists". Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W.W. Norton Co., 1987).


Dawkins can't think of a single example of an evolutionary process or mutation that increase genetic information




“Everybody knows that organisms get better as they evolve. They get more advanced, more modern, and less primitive. And everybody knows,” according to Dan McShea (who has written a paper called “Complexity and Evolution: What Everybody Knows”), “that organisms get more complex as they evolve.”. . .

“The only trouble with what everyone knows, says McShea, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Michigan, is that there is no evidence it’s true.”
Dan McShea, “Onward and Upward?” by Lori Oliwenstein, Discover, June 1993, p. 22


I don't know what kind of negative press creationism could possibly get when the whole fossil record points to creationism, there is no mechanism that increases DNA complexity....

Who needs the theory of Evolution...when not 1 bit of evidence can be produced to show the DNA mechanism that makes something become more genetically complex. With all the supposed millions of years and millions of micro-evolutionary steps in increasing complexity genetically, why is it that not one example can be cited. Why is it that in fact natural processes of mutation actually produce disadvantages results on a whole to the target population????

Adaptation should be used as the better expression and not micro-evolution....The is no macro-evolution and there is no micro-evolution (at the genetic level)....there is though adaption and genetic devolution from a complex parent which creates the variety.
edit on 1-2-2013 by JesuitGarlic because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 04:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by JesuitGarlic
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Well lets see here...

When cells divide and DNA is replicated what happens? new DNA is created with some fragments being lost and some regions of code becoming error ridden and mutated.

Is there any natural process that adds new increased genetic information to the DNA chain under cell division and replication to make it more complex (as evolution is meant to be from simple to complex right)?

The answer is no.


That is outright false. It has been proven that when genes are passed from parent to child, there are always mutations. Some add information, some delete information and some are neutral. These mutations and their rates have been studied and observed. Insertions might be more rare than deletions in humans, but information can most definitely be added, plus deleterious mutations can lead to new information down the road when combined with other neutral / deletions. Evolution does not mean go from simple to complex. It means adapting to the environment.

Your quote mines can be dismissed, genetics proves you wrong AND you posted the fake "Dawkins stumped" video! That's been proven to be fake 1000 times over. The intellectual dishonesty as a means to prove your religion is really disturbing. Stop attacking science. Focus on the good aspects of whatever belief system you follow. Don't attack others with lies.
edit on 1-2-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 05:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 



It has been proven that when genes are passed from parent to child, there are always mutations.

No argument there


Some add information, some delete information and some are neutral.

okay, show me your 'proven' evidence of a mutation passed on that has been beneficial to the target population as a whole


These mutations and their rates have been studied and observed.

show me your 'proven' evidence of a mutation passed on that has been beneficial to the target population as a whole


Evolution does not mean go from simple to complex. It means adapting to the environment.

You can call it whatever you like, the fact is that it is taught that things went from simple to complex over millions/billions of years...this is placed under the banner of the theory of evolution. With modern science and the study of DNA we know that for a population to become more complex it would require a increase in genetic information, a longer genetic code ect.

Show me the proof of any study of a natural process that increases the length of the genetic code and results in benefits to the target population as a whole


Your quote mines can be dismissed

Deny ignorance much.....very scientific argument...thank you for showing me the error of my ways


genetics proves you wrong

Sorry, where is that proof..still waiting on it


AND you posted the fake "Dawkins stumped" video! That's been proven to be fake 1000 times over.

Who knows, set the record straight and post the evidence that Dawkins obviously said but must have been edited out.


The intellectual dishonesty as a means to prove your religion is really disturbing. Stop attacking science.


How about you post your mountainous evidence before we touch the religious implications. Seeing that the evidence of science points to creationism your argument about attacking science is strange, I am for science. There is no 'science' evidence confirming simple-to-complex evolution.
edit on 1-2-2013 by JesuitGarlic because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by JesuitGarlic
Some add information, some delete information and some are neutral.
okay, show me your 'proven' evidence of a mutation passed on that has been beneficial to the target population as a whole


www.gate.net...



You can call it whatever you like, the fact is that it is taught that things went from simple to complex over millions/billions of years...this is placed under the banner of the theory of evolution. With modern science and the study of DNA we know that for a population to become more complex it would require a increase in genetic information, a longer genetic code ect.

When you look at the grand scheme of things of course life went from simple to complex, but it's not a requirement. There are plenty of creatures on earth that haven't changed much in hundreds of millions of years. White sharks are a good example. If there's no big environmental changes and their survival is not threatened, there's no need for any major evolution. Complexity is NOT a requirement of evolution. Survival and adaptation is.



Who knows, set the record straight and post the evidence that Dawkins obviously said but must have been dited out.

It's a well known hoax. The guy has written entire books on evolution and dedicates entire chapters to the topic. Obviously you have never read them or even considered any viewpoint besides your own.

It's a stupid strawman and ad hominem attack on Dawkins. It doesn't prove anything. If you asked a nuclear physicist about some details of the nuclear fusion process, he might need a minute to come up with a satisfactory answer. Even if the video weren't edited for intentionally making him look bad, it still wouldn't prove ANYTHING about evolution or creation.

www.skeptics.com.au...

He explains everything he and thoroughly answers the question. I also saw him do a presentation where he debunked those videos and showed at least 3 others that did the same thing, chopping up the same interview dubbing in different audio. It's not only an intentional hoax, Dawkins has written books on the subject, and goes in depth to explain those things. I love when people think they've totally got it figured out but it is just a weak ad hominem attack that has nothing to do with evolution.


How about you post your mountainous evidence before we touch the religious implications. Seeing that the evidence of science points to creationism your argument about attacking science is strange, I am for science. There is no 'science' evidence confirming simple-to-complex evolution.


www.talkorigins.org...

We'll start here. Please debunk this evidence and specifically mention the parts you think are wrong. Evolution is a proven fact. That's why there is a scientific theory about it. Scientific theories are based on facts. We might not know every detail about it, but we know a lot, and we know that it happens. Science DOES NOT point to creation, in fact it's the opposite. There is no theory of creation and no objective evidence whatsoever to suggest it.
edit on 1-2-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 



You also have to watch the whole clip of that particular Dawkins question.

When the question was asked, Dawkins had been told the cameras were not ready, but that this was the question they were going to ask. The long pause is not that he had no answer, its that he was wainting to be told that the cameras were ready for his answer.

This is a well known hoax that has been around for quite a while.

As to the imbecillic quote mining of The Blind Watchmaker. Try readining it first. Many of the chapters start using questins posed aimilar to this, which are then answered in full as you read on.

As stated by Barcs above, the poster loses all credibility by resorting to such idiotic tactics.



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 06:04 AM
link   
The only difference between micro and macro is time and evolutionary biologists make no distinction between the two. If there was only micro evolution, then how come there are no 100 million year old fossils that almost look like modern humans/elephants/rhinos/bears/dogs/cows/etc. What is the magical force that prevents too much of micro from accumulating? Why did this magical force fail e.g. in the case of whales and dolphins, for which there is a clear fossil record from land mammals to aquatic mammals..



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 04:27 AM
link   
reply to post by blackcube
 


evolutionary theory not fact

there's more proof for adaptation that evolution,
since you can't breed a cat with a dog or a chicken with a dolphin

i have a question though,
how did single celled organism become multi-celled organisms.
then how did these multi-celled organisms evolve into their different gender all within proximity of each other. in this ginormus planent?? tiny cells the size of this period ------> .



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 06:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by ss830
reply to post by blackcube
 


evolutionary theory not fact

there's more proof for adaptation that evolution,
since you can't breed a cat with a dog or a chicken with a dolphin

I love such nonsensical statements. It's like me saying that there's more proof for Allah than Jesus since you can't walk on water while drinking wine. I mean, it's not like TOE predicts that one can breed cats with dogs but whatever..





top topics
 
5

log in

join