RE: I 'believe' in Evolution
October 22, 2012 at 4:27 pm
(This post was last modified: October 22, 2012 at 4:37 pm by Undeceived.)
(October 21, 2012 at 2:14 pm)Rhythm Wrote: LOL, macro and micro refer to our perspective of the event, not the process. Don't start this tired shit. Microevolution -is- macroevolution. Titl the lens into closer focus, pan out over wider focus. End of.Micro involves using already existing genetic code. For example, the beak a certain species of finch may measure from 2mm to 8mm. If 8mm is best for the seed in the area, eventually all other sizes may be eliminated. This is reducing the genetic pool--specialization, effectively anti-evolution. Macro involves adding new information to the genetic code via random mutation. Macro has never been observed to occur within a probability that does not kill its test species off. Evolution advocates argue that generations are too long to conduct a reasonable experiment on the process. In actuality, experiments have been held on pathogens. Pathogens such as E. coli have some 10,000 generations pass in a couple year span. The scientists of such experiments have found little to no beneficial mutations. Richard Lenski’s is most well-known:
Quote:Although the bacteria in each population are thought to have generated hundreds of millions of mutations over the first 20,000 generations, Lenski has estimated that within this time frame, only 10 to 20 beneficial mutations achieved fixation in each population, with fewer than 100 total point mutations (including neutral mutations) reaching fixation in each population.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_lon...experiment
Those mutations they called beneficial were usually increases in tolerance or abilities to withstand conditions a real life E. coli would never encounter. Now put this experiment in the time frame of vertebrates. 10,000 generations is millions of years. Factor in the knowledge that Bacteria and small organisms purportedly mutate more freely than their vertebrate comparatives. Our results: a handful of potentially beneficial (depending on location) mutations in a ten million year period. That is far below the required number for macroevolution. David A. Plaisted does the math and projects a necessary one beneficial mutation every 7 to 10 years (http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/genetics.html ). To all the self-proclaimed scientists out there: how many do you think evolution needs?
