(December 19, 2016 at 7:00 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Ok sweetie... take care....
as I said, I didn't expect any more from you any how.

I was discussing a known rapid one-gen "macro" evolution as a possible response to the creationist claim that we NEVER see "macro" changes in species, and the implications for the specimen's chances for successfully passing on that mutation.

(December 19, 2016 at 7:17 am)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: I was discussing a known rapid one-gen "macro" evolution as a possible response to the creationist claim that we NEVER see "macro" changes in species, and the implications for the specimen's chances for successfully passing on that mutation.

Unfortunately, that's not highly likely. Your 2-headed cow example is a good one as gross mutations can & do occur. In the main though, they're likely to confer little/no advantage but that doesn't mean that they can't; it all depends on environmental & social selection pressures and if they're favourable, the mutation is passed and the allele frequency increases. However if you think of things the other way round, you get a better argument. I assume you've heard of recidivisms? Sometimes humans are born with tails because we still have the genes within us and sometimes random mutations will result in expression of such genes when normally they wouldn't. That's a perfect demonstration of 'macro' evolution.

(December 19, 2016 at 12:46 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Ok... jester doesn't care, but others may want to check the accuracy of that statement!

We have, you're just lying through your arsehole (so business as usual for you then).

(December 19, 2016 at 7:17 am)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: I was discussing a known rapid one-gen "macro" evolution as a possible response to the creationist claim that we NEVER see "macro" changes in species, and the implications for the specimen's chances for successfully passing on that mutation.

You want Hyla Versicolor then, the Gray Tree Frog. It's an American frog that's largely identical to the Cope's Gray Tree Frog, except that the latter is diploid, and the former is tetraploid. Over the course of one or two generations, Hyla Versicolor evolved a double chromosome set that classifies is as an entirely new species. If literally doubling your chromosome count doesn't qualify as a macro change, I don't know what does.

Unless, of course, "macro" changes are supposed to be obvious, outward appearance changes, which only really bespeaks a superficial understanding of biology. If you're being asked for a crocoduck, then you're being asked for evidence of chimera-ism, not evolution. If immense, baseline genetic changes that fundamentally alter the species you're in don't count, then it's possible, just saying, that creationists are just looking for reasons not to be pleased and nothing would satisfy their conditions.

(December 19, 2016 at 7:25 am)Ben Davis Wrote:

(December 19, 2016 at 7:17 am)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: I was discussing a known rapid one-gen "macro" evolution as a possible response to the creationist claim that we NEVER see "macro" changes in species, and the implications for the specimen's chances for successfully passing on that mutation.

Unfortunately, that's not highly likely. Your 2-headed cow example is a good one as gross mutations can & do occur. In the main though, they're likely to confer little/no advantage but that doesn't mean that they can't; it all depends on environmental & social selection pressures and if they're favourable, the mutation is passed and the allele frequency increases. However if you think of things the other way round, you get a better argument. I assume you've heard of recidivisms? Sometimes humans are born with tails because we still have the genes within us and sometimes random mutations will result in expression of such genes when normally they wouldn't. That's a perfect demonstration of 'macro' evolution.

I don't expect to convert creationists, of course, but I never hoped for that. I wanted to have a handy counter to their claim for the fence sitters.

(December 19, 2016 at 7:31 am)Tazzycorn Wrote:

(December 19, 2016 at 12:46 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Ok... jester doesn't care, but others may want to check the accuracy of that statement!

We have, you're just lying through your arsehole (so business as usual for you then).

What do you think was a lie?  We can fact check it if you like.

Can you two please get a thread?

Down my way we have a well respected chemist who actually runs the creationist museum in Portsmouth.
I was at an open meeting where creatoinism was discussed and it became clear that he knew a lot about chemistry but sod all about anything else.
He was quite, quite mad.
Mr Fibble mad.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KE0njnZXyY

---

(December 19, 2016 at 9:07 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I agree with pretty much all of that.  I would also consider it to be microevolution or natural variation.  I don't believe that it explains large changes in body plan or morphology.   What is the mechanism or theory, by which these types of changes occur?  Or if understanding is lacking, what is the evidence, that these did occur as the story is told?   We do are best to connect the dots, as evolution tells us, but what tells us, that we should be drawing these lines at all?

This highly regarded chemist says that he doesn't understand it, and seems to say that there is a distinction.

Microevolution over time leads to bigger changes. Its the difference between taking one step down a road and taking many. So an accumulation of small changes leads to big cjanges eventually.
I shall explain this as though to a simple child. If everyday you put a pebble in one spot on the ground over enough time you will have a mountain of stones. Little things accumulate and there has been billions of years of evolution, which sped up exponentially when sex started.