I 'believe' in Evolution

[downbeatplumb]

Polaris seems to be conflating Darwinism with Lamarckism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism

[Undeceived]

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:

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?

[Darkstar]

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.

---

---

Evolving an ideally sized beak is anti-evolution? Experiments on bacteria show no beneficial mutations?
You do realize that life has had billions of years to evolve, right? Not to mention that, as you claim the e-coli only developed resistances to things they would never encounter, one can conclude that if they actually encountered these things the trait would evolve faster because more of those without it would die. And you clearly don't know what macro and micro mean.

[pocaracas]

Perhaps, the presently existing micro-organisms are very much adapted to being single-celled that they just won't change too much in a human's life span.
Perhaps, they have been more or less the same for sooo many millions of years that they just don't mutate into some other species, within the span of a scientific experiment.
Maybe that experiment didn't provide the required environmental changes for that population to evolve... perhaps because it is already evolved to match most environments present on Earth?...


Try something more malleable, like the fruit fly!

[The Grand Nudger]

Micro involves using already existing genetic code.

As does macro, because, again, they are the same.

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.

What about that sounds like anti-evolution to you? Specialization and adaptation, filtered through your garbage religious goggles, comes out sounding like anti-evolution?

Truly breathtaking.

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.

More cretinist garbage. Macro has been observed. Not only has it been observed, we can't even conceptualize a barrier which could prevent it. Try again.

Evolution advocates argue that generations are too long to conduct a reasonable experiment on the process.

No, they don't argue this, because it has been observed.

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:

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.

Have you encountered a situation in which your appendix, tailbone, wisdom teeth, or palmer reflex was useful? Oh, you haven't, neither have I, yet these adaptations remain (and I assume that we are both "real life human beings"). Mutations need not be beneficial, they need only avoid becoming deleterious. The only thing mutations need to do in order for evolution to happen...is occur, which they do, and again, this has been observed. Whether or not a mutation is beneficial is decided by the environment. Evolution doesn't march towards beneficial mutations, why would you assume that it did (and if you'd like to claim, at this point, that you didn't..then why would the relative number of mutations any given species expressed seem so relevant as some sort of metric unto itself otherwise)? How could it even know which mutations would be beneficial? I'm curious as to when you're going to stop arguing for evolution and start arguing against it?

Now put this experiment in the time frame of vertebrates. 10,000 generations is millions of years.

LOL, you think so? It's actually more like 200,000 in the case of human beings...and we've been fully modern for just about that much time. Go figure eh?

Factor in the knowledge that Bacteria and small organisms purportedly mutate more freely than their vertebrate comparatives.

So it would seem, they acheived ten to twenty mutations whereas we've only achieved maybe half a dozen (being incredibly generous here)in a similar number of generations. I'd call that much more free, yes.

Our results: a handful of potentially beneficial (depending on location) mutations in a ten million year period.

You mean a 200,000 year period (and I was being generous there as well). A handful you say? Like half a dozen?

That is far below the required number for macroevolution.

So it would seem, by simple reference to us. That would be troubling if we weren't talking about millions (and honestly, billions) of years instead of a couple hundred k, eh? You do realize that only one mutation is required for macroevolution at any given point for any given species..right? The event that is refered to generlly (and collectively) as macroevolution is nothing more than speciation. The only mutation required for this to occur is a mutation that prevents interbreeding. That's it, that's all, nothing else is required. See how simple this shit is? Imagine my surprise when people can't seem to wrap their heads around it? Famously, this event only took 35 generations in one very important experiment regarding fruit flies. Amusingly, they didn;t even require a mutation to enable this, they became reproductively isolated due to behavioral patterns. Awesome shit huh?

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 ). Though most evolutionists aren't that radical, they aren't too far off. Reason carefully.

You trust that jackass to do the math for you? Now I see why you're having so much trouble with evolution. On the other hand, judging by your math up above with regards to generations and how that works out in years maybe you should let someone else handle it for you eh? I have a relevant question. Whens the last time you went to the dry cleaners to get a slice of pizza?

[Polaris]

They aren't the same. Did you forget what you learned in biology class?

[The Grand Nudger]

LOL, in what way do they differ? I'm sorry, but I can't help but giggle when someone argues over biology by arguing against biology.

[IATIA]

Microevolution and macroevolution

[Minimalist]

Resorting to facts again, IATIA.

The creatards won't like that.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm wondering why the author thinks that no instance of macroevolution has been observed, and why the author thinks that macroevolution must create new genes? There are dozens of observed instances of macroevolution which do not entail the creation of "new" genetic information, notably polyploidy in flowering plants. Polyploidy isn't such a hot candidate for our own evolution, but nevertheless it has the ability to trigger a speciation event without creating new genes.

(ah, I see, they don't like the criteria of speciation, though one would wonder how they came acrossed Ohno without also coming acrossed polyploidy -and it's observed examples- as it pertained to macroevolution......)

I also particularly like the quip about the self evident facts that evolutionists ignore.