Macro and Micro evolution for dummies.

[The Grand Nudger]

A couple. First, that an illustration created by an intelligent designer is a poor choice for an analogy to evolution.

Again, irrelevant. The illustration is meant to show the sum total of gradual change, that's it. That's all.

Second, showing that some things can be arranged in a pattern to show gradual change is a trivial observation - a NSS moment.

We had no hand in "arranging" that pattern (but it wouldn't matter if we did - see above-).

Do we know that evolution is always so gradual? i seem to recall hearing speculation that mutations to Hox genes could have produced immediately evident phenotypic change.

Would depend on the circumstances (and the life in question). We know that speciation events can occur gradual or abruptly. Unfortunately, irrelevant, -see above-.

Do you think the illustration is a good analogy for the fossil record?

Irrelevant, -see above-

Yes, that would have eliminated one problem. Others as noted above would remain, and there may be some specific to a sunset - how gradual is the change over time, does it go in one direction as the illustration does, or back and forth?

Irrelevant - see......above-.

The only problem is that you just can't fucking handle whats been put forward in such a simple way, so you'd like to bicker about others things. You understand the example so well, that you've correctly determined that you'll have to argue about something else - then claim that you've impeached the example ( hopefully without someone calling bullshit). Wanna know what made this painfully obvious? The only thing you haven't argued against is the only thing the example labored to demonstrate. You've tried every avenue -except- to argue that small gradual changes do not lead to larger differences between the first and final examples. Ah well, shenanigans.

[FallentoReason]

Well concluded Rhythm. I think this thread is by far the best example of how to successfully derail a thread and employ strawman and red herring fallacies all the while thinking you've won.

Like I said before, what's been brought up by the theists is trivial and irrelevant as micro evolution has been observed.

It's fact, end of story.

[5thHorseman]

Oh hot damn, it all just fell into place! Thank you Gooders!

Finally.

[The Grand Nudger]

Like I said before, what's been brought up by the theists is trivial and irrelevant as micro evolution has been observed.

It's fact, end of story.

So has macro -even if we grant some delineating line that doesn't exist- (by multiples avenues, in the lab and in the field) so again, that's the end of that story.

[Kirbmarc]

Some creationists go further, adding that macroevolution must involve addition of information, while microevolution is change resulting from loss of information.

Evolution doesn't deal with "information". It deals with genotypes that causefenotypes. A certain fenotype can be an advantage in a situation and a disadvantage in another. There's no "loss" or "addition" of information, just transmission of genotypes related to fenotypes that make it possible to have offsprings.

Talking about "information" is begging the question. Creationist assume the evolution has a purpose, that it "aims" at something. It doesn't. What work in a specific environment doesn't work in a different one. Saying things like "this animal is more or less evoluted than this other one" is talking nonsense.

[The Grand Nudger]

It wouldn't matter if it did. Bicker over information as a creationist and you'll still end up with jack-shit. Unfortunately for the apologist, modern synthesis is the unifying theory of biology, it has been observed and is demonstrable, corroborated by every overlapping field of science...without a single shred of evidence in opposition to it.

[John V]

Micro evolution has been observed to death.

NSS. Who said it wasn't?

---

Again, irrelevant. The illustration is meant to show the sum total of gradual change, that's it. That's all.

OK. It's a rather trivial observation. Like I said, six inches of snow is usually the sum total of gradual change. BFD.

[The Grand Nudger]

Indeed, it is a trivial observation, which leads one to wonder why there's so much opposition to it.

[John V]

Evolution doesn't deal with "information". It deals with genotypes that causefenotypes.

And genes contain heritable information.

A certain fenotype

It's phenotype. I'm guessing you learned about evolution through youtube clips.

can be an advantage in a situation and a disadvantage in another. There's no "loss" or "addition" of information, just transmission of genotypes related to fenotypes that make it possible to have offsprings.

Mutations are a mechanism of evolution and can cause losses and supposedly additions of information.

---

Indeed, it is a trivial observation, which leads one to wonder why there's so much opposition to it.

I'd say it leads one to wonder why it was posted in the first place.

[The Grand Nudger]

Mutations are a mechanism of evolution and can cause losses and supposedly additions of information.

Bzzzzzzzzzt I'll take creationist claptrap for $500 John.

If you want to couch the conversation in terms of "information" it is the exterior environment "providing additional information" - along with a host of other mechanisms (not that additional information is even required...btw). Mutations themselves are not a termination of cause in any case, but an expression of a few choice natural laws and other interfering agents - none of which, I'll add, are "intelligent". The aggregate effect of these things are lumped together as a mechanism (though more accurately it's a term we use to describe mechanisms) of evolution.