Why micro vs macro evolution matters

_{Denyse O'Leary

June 2, 2015

Evolution, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

The definition of macroevolution is surprisingly non-precise for a scientific discipline. Macroevolution can be defined as evolution above the species level, or evolution on a ‘grand scale’, or microevolution + 3.8 billion years. It has never been observed, but a theoretical example is the evolution from a chordate eel-like creature to a human being. Many people who embrace Darwinian evolution confidently state that evolution is a proven fact, not a theory. They say this in the basis of thousands of papers discussing microevolution. Herein lays the second mistake … the assumption that because variation/microevolution is such an overwhelmingly proven fact that, therefore, macroevolution must be as well.

Macroevolution is very different from microevolution. The reason there are so many countless observations of variation/microevolution is that it requires no statistically significant levels of novel genetic information; it is trivially easy to achieve. More.

And macroevolution is the road to Arcturus, right?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

Q, Hope is a powerful thing. But it's not a property of particles or the void. Can it change what seems to be our inevitable future? Let's hope so. :)Mung_{June 5, 2015
June
06
Jun
5
05
2015
09:42 PM
9
09
42
PM
PDT}

Mung, The dynamic instability of genomes is directly observed in the fossil record. This and the alarming rate of accumulation of mutations portends the genetic collapse and extinction of Homo sapiens as well. It seems that we weren't meant to last. I suppose we could consider genomic repair, but Darwinists have wasted so much time and money on a stupid, failed, 19th century theory that we're probably too late now. -QQuerius_{June 5, 2015
June
06
Jun
5
05
2015
08:43 PM
8
08
43
PM
PDT}

Box: Irrelevant. A weather system doesn’t exist as a coherence that preserves itself. You used the term dynamic equilibrium, which can refer to a simple reversible reaction in stasis. An example would be an acid in aqueous solution. You presumably meant a complex dynamical system, which, when dampened, can hover over a mean or a strange attractor. Weather is such a system. A weather system does have a lifespan of persistence. If you meant something else, then you might want to clarify your position. Mung: Dynamic instability, not dynamic stability. Complex dynamical systems can be stable or unstable. Many times it is not possible to determine whether a given system is stable over the long run, and they can exhibit chaotic behavior or sudden collapse. Box was referring to apparently stable dynamical systems. bFast: Stupid alien. "They're made out of meat."Zachriel_{June 5, 2015
June
06
Jun
5
05
2015
06:01 PM
6
06
01
PM
PDT}

Box @ 49,
Notably the continued existence of fighter jet is a zillions of time more likely than the continued existence of an organism.
Excellent point! A spontaneously generated fighter jet might last billions of years, all without any chance of extinction in a biological sense. Certainly there will be some amount of degeneration depending on the rate of oxidation. Maybe this explains exactly what happened on Mars to all the fighter jets that "must have" spontaneously generated on its surface! Certainly this is at least as plausible and likely as evolutionary mythology. ;-) -QQuerius_{June 5, 2015
June
06
Jun
5
05
2015
04:26 PM
4
04
26
PM
PDT}

Zachriel, "An alien might have trouble telling the difference." Stupid alien.bFast_{June 5, 2015
June
06
Jun
5
05
2015
02:54 PM
2
02
54
PM
PDT}

Zachriel: In a complex dynamical system, the system is constantly changing, but when properly damped, will hover around a stable point. Microtubule dynamic instability Dynamic instability, not dynamic stability. Zachriel: These sorts of systems are found not only in biology, but in fluid mechanics, such as weather systems. Are not.Mung_{June 5, 2015
June
06
Jun
5
05
2015
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT}

Zachriel: You’re right! Bound to happen sooner or later. :DMung_{June 5, 2015
June
06
Jun
5
05
2015
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT}

Zachriel: These sorts of systems are found not only in biology, but in fluid mechanics, such as weather systems.
Irrelevant. A weather system doesn't exist as a coherence that preserves itself. There is no whole that perseveres.
Zachriel: Then there’s a subset of dynamical systems called complex adaptive systems, which are capable of learning, such as stock markets and bee hives.
What is your point? These are not examples outside of biology. And again the same mistake: the "stock market" is not a whole. It doesn't make sense to say that 'the stock market is learning', unless one speaks metaphorically.Box_{June 5, 2015
June
06
Jun
5
05
2015
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT}

Box: IOW once the fighter jet is created it can be left ‘on its own’. This just a quibble, but fighter jets have parts replaced throughout their lifespan. However, this doesn't affect your larger point. Box: For an organism things are entirely different: it is safe to say that no cell ever again regains precisely the structure it had one moment before—somehow it is a dynamic equilibrium. In a complex dynamical system, the system is constantly changing, but when properly damped, will hover around a stable point. These sorts of systems are found not only in biology, but in fluid mechanics, such as weather systems. Then there's a subset of dynamical systems called complex adaptive systems, which are capable of learning, such as stock markets and bee hives.Zachriel_{June 5, 2015
June
06
Jun
5
05
2015
05:30 AM
5
05
30
AM
PDT}

Querius: Of course that the emergence of a fighter is trillions of times more likely than life emerging on earth doesn’t seem to bother Darwinists at all.
Notably the continued existence of fighter jet is a zillions of time more likely than the continued existence of an organism. The fighter jet's equilibrium is not a daunting affair: if the parts maintain their relative position towards each other everything will be fine. IOW once the fighter jet is created it can be left 'on its own'. For an organism things are entirely different: it is safe to say that no cell ever again regains precisely the structure it had one moment before—somehow it is a dynamic equilibrium.
But the same mystery plays out in the mature organism, which must continually work to maintain its normal form, as well as restore it when injured. It is difficult to bring oneself fully face to face with the enormity of this accomplishment. Scientists can damage tissues in endlessly creative ways that the organism has never confronted in its evolutionary history. Yet, so far as its resources allow, it mobilizes those resources, sets them in motion, and does what it has never done before, all in the interest of restoring a dynamic form and a functioning that the individual molecules and cells certainly cannot be said to “understand” or “have in view”. We can frame the problem of identity and context with this question: Where do we find the context and activity that, in whatever sense we choose to use the phrase, does “have in view” this restorative aim? Not an easy question. Yet the achievement is repeatedly carried through; an ever-adaptive intelligence comes into play somehow, and all those molecules and cells are quite capable of participating in and being caught up in the play. [S.Talbott]
Box_{June 5, 2015
June
06
Jun
5
05
2015
04:48 AM
4
04
48
AM
PDT}

Mung: Actually, people just are deutorostomes. You're right!Zachriel_{June 5, 2015
June
06
Jun
5
05
2015
04:38 AM
4
04
38
AM
PDT}

bornagain77 @ 42, Science fiction is a good term for the theory of evolution. It's as if it was argued that a meteorite slamming into an iron ore deposit resulted in a fully functional fighter jet. To counter the insane probabilities against this, the anthropic principle is invoked, with the claim of billions of events in billions of worlds over billions of years, on one of which we are the observers. Of course that the emergence of a fighter is trillions of times more likely than life emerging on earth doesn't seem to bother Darwinists at all. They must have evolved an extra thick skull. ;-) -QQuerius_{June 4, 2015
June
06
Jun
4
04
2015
09:45 PM
9
09
45
PM
PDT}

Zachriels spouting their usual nonsense. After all, people are just modified deuterostomes, tubes with appendages to stuff food into one end. Actually, people just are deutorostomes. And people just are chordates. People are not modified primates, people just are primates.Mung_{June 4, 2015
June
06
Jun
4
04
2015
07:20 PM
7
07
20
PM
PDT}

After all, people are just modified deuterostomes
Hahamike1962_{June 4, 2015
June
06
Jun
4
04
2015
07:07 PM
7
07
07
PM
PDT}

Zach, to simplify, you are really saying you are an idiot as opposed to an IDiot?bornagain77_{June 4, 2015
June
06
Jun
4
04
2015
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT}

bornagain77: Your extraordinary claim is that unguided material processes can produce complexity that far outclasses anything man has ever built by concerted effort. No. Our claim is that a sufficiently advanced alien may not recognize any significant differences in deuterostomes that you take for granted. So, being helpful as you always are, you point out that they think with their meat and link to a helpful video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tScAyNaRdQZachriel_{June 4, 2015
June
06
Jun
4
04
2015
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT}

Zach, I do not take your Star Trek imagination seriously. Even Picard himself does not take your Star Trek imagination seriously. Picard's Epic Double Facepalm https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNsrK6P9QvI Your extraordinary claim is that unguided material processes can produce complexity that far outclasses anything man has ever built by concerted effort. As far as real science is concerned, and not science fiction, It will take a far more than your imagination that it may be remotely possible for 'beyond belief' complexity to arise by unguided material processes, to actually prove your extraordinary claim that it is actually possible for unguided material processes to out-engineer our best engineers. And in regards to ever providing real world evidence to make payment on your extraordinary claim, you are in sheer poverty!bornagain77_{June 4, 2015
June
06
Jun
4
04
2015
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT}

bornagain77: LOL It's a serious point. Depending on the level of analysis, there hasn't been much evolution in the deuterostome line. An alien might have trouble telling the difference. Still a tube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vi7QQ5pO7_AZachriel_{June 4, 2015
June
06
Jun
4
04
2015
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PDT}

"After all, people are just modified deuterostomes, tubes with appendages to stuff food into one end. And deuterostomes have been around for half-a-billion years." LOL, that joke, which you have repeated numerous times, never gets old Zach: But I think you just might be missing an important step or two in your nonchalant 'just modified deuterosomes' claim which you toss out repeatedly:
Human brain has more switches than all computers on Earth – November 2010 Excerpt: They found that the brain’s complexity is beyond anything they’d imagined, almost to the point of being beyond belief, says Stephen Smith, a professor of molecular and cellular physiology and senior author of the paper describing the study: …One synapse, by itself, is more like a microprocessor–with both memory-storage and information-processing elements–than a mere on/off switch. In fact, one synapse may contain on the order of 1,000 molecular-scale switches. A single human brain has more switches than all the computers and routers and Internet connections on Earth. http://news.cnet.com/8301-27083_3-20023112-247.html “Complexity Brake” Defies Evolution – August 8, 2012 Excerpt: Consider a neuronal synapse — the presynaptic terminal has an estimated 1000 distinct proteins. Fully analyzing their possible interactions would take about 2000 years. Or consider the task of fully characterizing the visual cortex of the mouse — about 2 million neurons. Under the extreme assumption that the neurons in these systems can all interact with each other, analyzing the various combinations will take about 10 million years…, even though it is assumed that the underlying technology speeds up by an order of magnitude each year. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/08/complexity_brak062961.html
Perhaps you could get a little more explicit, i.e. 'scientific', as to how that 'beyond belief' complexity came about rather than just 'hand-waving' that it's the result of 'modified deuterosomes'. A lot of computer engineers would like to know exactly how unguided material processes produced something that far outclasses all their combined efforts thus far in computer engineering. I'm pretty sure that referring to hypothetical nested hierarchies and 'just modified deuterostomes' as the explanation for such 'beyond belief' complexity will not be a satisfactory answer for those computer engineers. In fact, I'm fairly certain that they will require you to give an actual demonstration of your extraordinary claim that unguided material processes can easily produce such 'beyond belief' complexity!bornagain77_{June 4, 2015
June
06
Jun
4
04
2015
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT}

Querius: What astounded me was learning about all the modern-looking organisms that were contemporaneous (after being dutifully reclassified on principle) with well-known fossils. The theory of evolution posits that organisms are descendants of previous forms, so an organism can't precede any plausible ancestor. However, there's nothing in the theory of evolution that says that a form can't persist. What you might consider a form depends on your perspective. After all, people are just modified deuterostomes, tubes with appendages to stuff food into one end. And deuterostomes have been around for half-a-billion years.Zachriel_{June 4, 2015
June
06
Jun
4
04
2015
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PDT}

bornagain77, What astounded me was learning about all the modern-looking organisms that were contemporaneous (after being dutifully reclassified on principle) with well-known fossils. What we need is a worthy successor to Dr. Ohno to write a paper titled, "So Many Living Fossils in Our Biome." -QQuerius_{June 3, 2015
June
06
Jun
3
03
2015
07:25 PM
7
07
25
PM
PDT}

Dr JDD, Government scientist: We have top people working on it recovering mountains of evidence. Querius: What people? What evidence? Government scientist: Top people. Mountains of evidence. Querius: Oh, I see. (pause) Mountains of evidence? Government scientist: Mountains . . . of evidence. lol -QQuerius_{June 3, 2015
June
06
Jun
3
03
2015
07:14 PM
7
07
14
PM
PDT}

Nested Hierarchy and Fossil Succession only exist in your unrestrained imagination.
Taxonomic nested hierarchies don’t support Darwinism - May 14, 2013 Excerpt: In sum, the nested hierarchies in taxonomy don’t need Darwinism, in fact, Darwinism distorts the ability actually see the nested hierarchies, and finally nested hierachies based on taxonomy are evidence against Darwinism. https://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/taxonomic-nested-hierarchies-dont-support-darwinism/ Evolution Professor: "Biological Designs Fall Into a Nested Hierarchy" - May 14, 2014 Excerpt: phylogenetic incongruence is rampant in evolutionary studies. Conflicts exist at all levels of the evolutionary tree and throughout both morphological and molecular traits.,,, And yet in public presentations of their theory, evolutionists present a very different story. Velasco’s claim is typical. For example, Richard Dawkins explained that gene comparisons “fall in a perfect hierarchy, a perfect family tree.” This statement is so false it isn’t even wrong—it is absurd. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2014/05/evolution-professor-biological-designs.html “No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way... To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.” - Henry Gee, In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life Scientific study turns understanding about evolution on its head – July 30, 2013 Excerpt: evolutionary biologists,,, looked at nearly one hundred fossil groups to test the notion that it takes groups of animals many millions of years to reach their maximum diversity of form. Contrary to popular belief, not all animal groups continued to evolve fundamentally new morphologies through time. The majority actually achieved their greatest diversity of form (disparity) relatively early in their histories. ,,,Dr Matthew Wills said: “This pattern, known as ‘early high disparity’, turns the traditional V-shaped cone model of evolution on its head. What is equally surprising in our findings is that groups of animals are likely to show early-high disparity regardless of when they originated over the last half a billion years. This isn’t a phenomenon particularly associated with the first radiation of animals (in the Cambrian Explosion), or periods in the immediate wake of mass extinctions.”,,, Author Martin Hughes, continued: “Our work implies that there must be constraints on the range of forms within animal groups, and that these limits are often hit relatively early on. Co-author Dr Sylvain Gerber, added: “A key question now is what prevents groups from generating fundamentally new forms later on in their evolution.,,, http://phys.org/news/2013-07-scientific-evolution.html “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.” TS Kemp - Fossils and Evolution,– Curator of Zoological Collections, Oxford University, Oxford Uni Press, p246, 1999 “What is missing are the many intermediate forms hypothesized by Darwin, and the continual divergence of major lineages into the morphospace between distinct adaptive types.” Robert L Carroll (born 1938) – vertebrate paleontologist who specialises in Paleozoic and Mesozoic amphibians Problem 5: Abrupt Appearance of Species in the Fossil Record Does Not Support Darwinian Evolution. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/01/problem_5_abrup091141.html podcast - Has Science Shown that We’re Related to Apes? - June 3, 2015 On this episode of ID the Future, Casey Luskin shows how the human fossil record contradicts the expectations of neo-Darwinian evolution. Luskin takes a close look at the technical literature surrounding human origins and explains why the evidence does not, despite common claims to the contrary, indicate that humans evolved from ape-like precursors. http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2015/06/has-science-shown-that-were-related-to-apes/ Has Science Shown That We Evolved from Ape-like Creatures? by Casey Luskin - article http://salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo26-science-faith/has-science-shown-that-we-evolved-from-ape-like-creatures.php
Perhaps, instead of relying on your imagination to try to make your case that you are an accident of unguided Darwinian processes, you can provide some real experimental evidence? Or is imaginary evidence good enough for you to reject all the promise that is held in the possibility of being made in the 'image of God'? Personally, I certainly would require some pretty stiff evidence, instead of such flimsy evidence as you eagerly accept, before I rejected such a priceless treasure that is held in Christianity in our being children of almighty God!
Scant search for the Maker Excerpt: But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms. - Alan H. Linton - emeritus professor of bacteriology, University of Bristol. http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=159282
Verses:
1 Corinthians 2:9 However, as it is written: "What no eye has seen, what no ear has heard, and what no human mind has conceived" -- the things God has prepared for those who love him-- Genesis 25:34 Then Jacob gave Esau some bread and some lentil stew. He ate and drank, and then got up and left. So Esau despised his birthright.
bornagain77_{June 3, 2015
June
06
Jun
3
03
2015
07:03 PM
7
07
03
PM
PDT}

Dr JDD: If you say “there is substantial evidence” enough times it must become true. No, however, it is true. We can start with the nested hierarchy or the fossil succession.Zachriel_{June 3, 2015
June
06
Jun
3
03
2015
06:31 PM
6
06
31
PM
PDT}

If you say "there is substantial evidence" enough times it must become true.Dr JDD_{June 3, 2015
June
06
Jun
3
03
2015
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT}

Kirk Durston: {Macroevolution} has never been observed, but a theoretical example is the evolution from a chordate eel-like creature to a human being. There is substantial evidence of the common descent of humans and eel-like organisms, through a process of relatively gradual change.Zachriel_{June 3, 2015
June
06
Jun
3
03
2015
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT}

Reverendspy, Hi I am a YEC, and yes Jesus was a YEC too, as was Moses. The bible clearly says days in Genesis, all Old earth creationists have to come up with silly reasons why a day doesn't mean a day lol. It's so important to God infact that he talks about it in the Ten commandments. I'll top bornagain77's Dr Ross with my favourite Dr Walt Brown, http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/logically_speaking_{June 3, 2015
June
06
Jun
3
03
2015
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT}

Macro-evolution as a result of repeated micro-evolution is the evolutionary theory that if you dig a hole deep enough, one shovel-full at a time, you will eventually reach the moon.drc466_{June 3, 2015
June
06
Jun
3
03
2015
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT}

reverendspy, yes, adaptation would be a more appropriate word to use instead of evolution. As well, Dr. Durston says that variation is also a more appropriate word to use rather than evolution since it is more specific as to what is actually happening.
Microevolution vs Macroevolution: Two Mistakes - Friday, May 29, 2015 Excerpt: The textbook for a genetics course I took at the University of Waterloo defined evolution as ‘changes in allele frequencies in a population over time’. An allele can be described as a variation of a particular gene. Defining evolution in this way can be misleading; it would be more accurate to call this variation. No new genes are required, just variation in existing genes or the loss of existing genetic information. This sort of variation is typically referred to as microevolution. Microevolution takes place through genetic drift, natural selection, mutations, insertions/deletions, gene transfer, and chromosomal crossover, all of which produce countless observed variations in plant or animal populations throughout history. Examples include variations of the Pepper Moth, Galapagos Finch beaks, new strains of flu viruses, antibiotic-resistant bacteria and variations in Stickleback armour. Each year, thousands of papers are published dealing with examples of microevolution/variation. The mistake I often hear evolution skeptics make is something to the effect that evolution is rubbish/bunk/false. They are often astonished to learn that variation (which they completely agree with) is defined as evolution. http://p2c.com/students/blogs/kirk-durston/2015/05/microevolution-vs-macroevolution-two-mistakes
And as pointed out in the Behe article I cited previously, the vast majority of beneficial variations/adaptations that occur are found to occur by loss of preexisting functional complexity/information in the genome rather than by a gain of function complexity/information. As Spetner puts the situation:
"The neo-Darwinians would like us to believe that large evolutionary changes can result from a series of small events if there are enough of them. But if these events all lose information they can’t be the steps in the kind of evolution the neo-Darwin theory is supposed to explain, no matter how many mutations there are. Whoever thinks macroevolution can be made by mutations that lose information is like the merchant who lost a little money on every sale but thought he could make it up on volume." Lee Spetner (Ph.D. Physics - MIT - Not By Chance)
As John Sanford puts the situation:
“Bergman (2004) has studied the topic of beneficial mutations. Among other things, he did a simple literature search via Biological Abstracts and Medline. He found 453,732 ‘mutation’ hits, but among these only 186 mentioned the word ‘beneficial’ (about 4 in 10,000). When those 186 references were reviewed, almost all the presumed ‘beneficial mutations’ were only beneficial in a very narrow sense–but each mutation consistently involved loss of function changes–hence loss of information. While it is almost universally accepted that beneficial (information creating) mutations must occur, this belief seems to be based upon uncritical acceptance of RM/NS, rather than upon any actual evidence. I do not doubt there are beneficial mutations as evidenced by rapid adaptation yet I contest the fact that they build meaningful information in the genome instead of degrade preexisting information in the genome.” John Sanford - “Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome”(pp. 26-27)
Darwinists simply do not have any empirical evidence that beneficial mutations are occurring on a large enough scale to prevent the extremely rare beneficial mutations from being swamped in a vast ocean of detrimental mutations that degrade the genome to one extent or another. In other words, unambiguously beneficial mutations are not occurring at anywhere near a high enough percentage so as to make neo-Darwinism viable as a scientific theory.
Multiple Overlapping Genetic Codes Profoundly Reduce the Probability of Beneficial Mutation George Montañez 1, Robert J. Marks II 2, Jorge Fernandez 3 and John C. Sanford 4 - May 2013 Excerpt: It is almost universally acknowledged that beneficial mutations are rare compared to deleterious mutations [1–10].,, It appears that beneficial mutations may be too rare to actually allow the accurate measurement of how rare they are [11]. 1. Kibota T, Lynch M (1996) Estimate of the genomic mutation rate deleterious to overall fitness in E. coli . Nature 381:694–696. 2. Charlesworth B, Charlesworth D (1998) Some evolutionary consequences of deleterious mutations. Genetica 103: 3–19. 3. Elena S, et al (1998) Distribution of fitness effects caused by random insertion mutations in Escherichia coli. Genetica 102/103: 349–358. 4. Gerrish P, Lenski R N (1998) The fate of competing beneficial mutations in an asexual population. Genetica 102/103:127–144. 5. Crow J (2000) The origins, patterns, and implications of human spontaneous mutation. Nature Reviews 1:40–47. 6. Bataillon T (2000) Estimation of spontaneous genome-wide mutation rate parameters: whither beneficial mutations? Heredity 84:497–501. 7. Imhof M, Schlotterer C (2001) Fitness effects of advantageous mutations in evolving Escherichia coli populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:1113–1117. 8. Orr H (2003) The distribution of fitness effects among beneficial mutations. Genetics 163: 1519–1526. 9. Keightley P, Lynch M (2003) Toward a realistic model of mutations affecting fitness. Evolution 57:683–685. 10. Barrett R, et al (2006) The distribution of beneficial mutation effects under strong selection. Genetics 174:2071–2079. 11. Bataillon T (2000) Estimation of spontaneous genome-wide mutation rate parameters: whither beneficial mutations? Heredity 84:497–501. http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/9789814508728_0006
Dr. Sanford, who is more than qualified to speak on the subject of mutations and their overwhelming tendency to degrade genetic information, labels the degenerative tendency of mutations on genomes to be 'Genetic Entropy'. In fact he wrote a book by the title, 'Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome'. The book is a fairly easy book to read that was written with the lay audience in mind. If you are interested in building an airtight case against neo-Darwinism, this book should definitely be included in your list of books to read. The overall body of evidence for Genetic Entropy, and the obvious Theistic implications associated with that degenerative tendency, are discussed in the following short interview (which I personally found to be a very informative interview):
Genetic Entropy - Dr. John Sanford - Evolution vs. Reality - video (Notes in description) http://vimeo.com/35088933
bornagain77_{June 3, 2015
June
06
Jun
3
03
2015
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PDT}

bornagain77>on 21 So basically the term microevolution is a misnomer. The correct term should be adaptation. Species adapt to their environment yes. But does that mean new information is involved? My understanding of evolution from school was that less complex became more complex through beneficial mutations which added information to the genetic makeup. Here is the way new world encyclopedia spins it. http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Microevolution In the laboratory, biologists have demonstrated microevolution involving organisms with short lifecycles, such as fruit flies, guppies, and bacteria, which allow testing over many generations.reverendspy_{June 3, 2015
June
06
Jun
3
03
2015
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply