Macroevolution

[Death_By_Pod]

You have to remember, though. I believe in microevolution, not macroevolution.

 

 

 

A cell does not adapt into a plant or animal. It would have to evolve. And I still think that's fooey. My evidence is the adaptation patterns of humans. Our changes are not permament unless passed on. Natural selection does not ever apply to us.

 

 

 

Explain this http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

 

ok, so it's a lot, lets start at one thing. Explain this one thing without resorting to macroevolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc ... troviruses

 

 

 

It's pretty simple if a virus randomly inserts its DNA into the host, then all descendants of the host should have that virus DNA. The good thing about this is that it can be falsified pretty easily, unrelated species such as humans and dogs should not have the same randomly inserted virus DNA. The link also provides a diagram showing how humans evolved using this method.

 

 

 

But hey like always, this is going to be ignored and the same old people are going to argue the same old things.

[warri0r45]

You have to remember, though. I believe in microevolution, not macroevolution.

 

 

 

A cell does not adapt into a plant or animal. It would have to evolve. And I still think that's fooey. My evidence is the adaptation patterns of humans. Our changes are not permament unless passed on. Natural selection does not ever apply to us.

 

 

 

Explain this http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

 

ok, so it's a lot, lets start at one thing. Explain this one thing without resorting to macroevolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc ... troviruses

 

 

 

It's pretty simple if a virus randomly inserts its DNA into the host, then all descendants of the host should have that virus DNA. The good thing about this is that it can be falsified pretty easily, unrelated species such as humans and dogs should not have the same randomly inserted virus DNA. The link also provides a diagram showing how humans evolved using this method.

 

 

 

But hey like always, this is going to be ignored and the same old people are going to argue the same old things.

 

 

 

Perhaps they will listen, you never know. That's quite an interesting find and would map out human evolution pretty clearly. As I've been saying, there are no barriers to macroevolution in DNA. Infact, as your example points out, it suggests it.

[Ambassadar]

Reasons I don't believe in Macroevolution. Actually I'm sleepy so I'll just list two quick reasons to get started for why I don't believe in it.

 

 

 

1. What made the first life? If I throw a bunch of chemicals into a pool of water and come back in a billion years they are still going to be just a bunch of chemicals.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.Are you telling me this:

 

 

 

 

Could turn into this if I sit around waiting long enough?

 

[warri0r45]

Reasons I don't believe in Macroevolution. Actually I'm sleepy so I'll just list two quick reasons to get started for why I don't believe in it.

 

 

 

1. What made the first life? If I throw a bunch of chemicals into a pool of water and come back in a billion years they are still going to be just a bunch of chemicals.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.Are you telling me this:

 

 

 

 

Could turn into this if I sit around waiting long enough?

 

 

 

 

Firstly, your arguments are really simplistic. What's to say it dosen't happen? What barriers prevent those changes? Don't just say you don't like it and post pictures. Granted, you're sleepy so you're probably going to provide a more well formulated argument later. As a sidenote, abiogenesis (life from non life) is a common target for evolution skeptics despite the fact it's not actually part of evolutionary theory and certainly not part of what macroevolution is.

 

 

 

p.s. that's a great picture of Jessica Alba. :P

[Dalcyte]

a few things:

 

 

 

First off, we don't evolve right now through macroevolution because our environment is not changing at a significant pace. If it suddenly got 40 degrees hotter (which is not ruled out in primordial earth) all of a sudden, and dried up water sources everywhere, the people suited for heat would be more adapt to survive...and we'd see more heat adapt humans.

 

 

 

Anyway, we didn't evolve from orangutans..chimps actually...and it doesn't matter if we don't look exactly alike (even though in a lot of cases we do), just check the DNA, they're 96%-99% exactly, 100% the same.

[Barihawk]

a few things:

 

 

 

First off, we don't evolve right now through macroevolution because our environment is not changing at a significant pace. If it suddenly got 40 degrees hotter (which is not ruled out in primordial earth) all of a sudden, and dried up water sources everywhere, the people suited for heat would be more adapt to survive...and we'd see more heat adapt humans.

 

 

 

Anyway, we didn't evolve from orangutans..chimps actually...and it doesn't matter if we don't look exactly alike (even though in a lot of cases we do), just check the DNA, they're 96%-99% exactly, 100% the same.

 

 

 

DNA is a complete mapping of our genes, that determines everything from appearance to behavior. The notion that our DNA is 100% identical to primates is simply...moronic...

 

 

 

The only thing we have in common with primates is the most shared genetic markers. More than any other living thing on Earth. However, these shared markers are just a fraction of a whole strand of DNA.

 

 

 

If we had 96-100% identical DNA to monkies, we'd be climbing trees and eating fleas off of our offspring at this moment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And to Warri0r:

 

 

 

Macroevolution is drastically different from microevolution. Someone gave an example of a drastic heating change? Although his example is extreme (all humans would die at that temperature within a day), we would simply adapt over time to a smaller climate change. We would still be humans, just a little more galvanized.

 

 

 

And my problem with humans is still in effect. The humans with negative mutations still have a chance to procreate and pass along their genes just as much as those with beneficial mutations. However, mutations do not last.

 

 

 

Another: Move into a desert area with a lot of sunlight. You will tan. Over time, your descendants will be born darker and darker. Now, they move to a northern region with less sunlight. Over time, they will become lighter and lighter.

 

 

 

Microevolution explains this as simple adaptation to the environment, fluid and temporary. Macroevolution would say that these people would be dark forever, until a better offer from genes came along. Which honestly makes more sense?

[warri0r45]

a few things:

 

 

 

First off, we don't evolve right now through macroevolution because our environment is not changing at a significant pace. If it suddenly got 40 degrees hotter (which is not ruled out in primordial earth) all of a sudden, and dried up water sources everywhere, the people suited for heat would be more adapt to survive...and we'd see more heat adapt humans.

 

 

 

Anyway, we didn't evolve from orangutans..chimps actually...and it doesn't matter if we don't look exactly alike (even though in a lot of cases we do), just check the DNA, they're 96%-99% exactly, 100% the same.

 

 

 

More specifically, we and chimps had a common ancestor which split in a speciation 'event' to eventually give us chimps and us. You're right in saying our DNA is remarkably similar. Coincidence? There's enough coincidental evidence to make common ancestry statistically viable, at bare minimum. There is more evidence than just coincidences, though.

 

 

 

I'm still yet to hear any barriers that prevent DNA mutations from eventualy forming an organism sufficiently different from the original.

[BlueTear]

Another: Move into a desert area with a lot of sunlight. You will tan. Over time, your descendants will be born darker and darker. Now, they move to a northern region with less sunlight. Over time, they will become lighter and lighter.

 

 

 

 

... why? If you're white like snowstorm when you arrive at this desert area, why would your child, or his child, or the next, be born with darker skin? What mechanism makes that possible?

[gonpost]

Another: Move into a desert area with a lot of sunlight. You will tan. Over time, your descendants will be born darker and darker. Now, they move to a northern region with less sunlight. Over time, they will become lighter and lighter.

 

 

 

 

... why? If you're white like snowstorm when you arrive at this desert area, why would your child, or his child, or the next, be born with darker skin? What mechanism makes that possible?

 

 

 

As an fyi to that...

 

 

 

It's theorized that black (or realistically a shade of deep brown) was the original skin color of the first humans. Whites/Asians/whatever were simply mutations. As a matter of fact, the "race gene" was discovered only a year or two ago, although it was kept on the down-low because they didn't want to stir up any controversy (don't want any race superiority fanatics coming out...).

 

 

 

Now, I could theorize why white people look different physically than black people all day...perhaps the first white person mated with one black person and they were both exiled due to looking different, resulting in a cycle of in-breeding which inevitably produced its own, different features... An example of in-breeding producing a unique looking physique would be the aborigines in Australia. Why is it that fairer skinned people lived up north? Well, obviously if they don't have as much melanin, they don't deal well with the sun. If they were exposed to as much sun as those living in Africa, they wouldn't have thrived very well, and so northern climates were more desirable. I could go on and on coming up with ideas...

 

 

 

Obviously in nature it does occur for some species to produce children without much melanin, for example, if you've ever seen white rabbits with red eyes. So it's possible that a variant of this produced white people as we know them today.

 

 

 

Either way, whether you believe in parts or don't believe in evolution at all really, it IS the most probable, explainable theory that we have. It is practical and nearly all evidence that we have points to it happening or permits it to have happened.

 

 

 

And also, some people are saying that billions of years isn't enough time for all this to have happened. I believe you haven't grasped what an incredibly huge timespan that is. All of recorded human history (the past 5,000ish years) has occured in .000001% of the earth's history. There is so much room!

 

 

 

Personally, I'd imagine mircoevolution over a long timespan could produce what we see as macroevolution...just a thought.

[Barihawk]

Another: Move into a desert area with a lot of sunlight. You will tan. Over time, your descendants will be born darker and darker. Now, they move to a northern region with less sunlight. Over time, they will become lighter and lighter.

 

 

 

 

... why? If you're white like snowstorm when you arrive at this desert area, why would your child, or his child, or the next, be born with darker skin? What mechanism makes that possible?

 

 

 

Err...adapting to your environment? High concentrations of melanin makes your skin more resistant to UV light. I am not trying to be racist or something, it's fact. Hell, I am white as a sheet but if I spend a lot of time outside I get extremely dark.

 

 

 

EDIT: I see what you are going for. It's still only microevolution. The person may look different, but they are still identical to me except for skin tone. Macroevolution has not taken place.

[Satenza]

Microevolution x Time = Macroevolution.

 

 

 

It's Pseudoscience, but when to conclusivley prove something we would need to identify billions of species thats the closest we can come.

 

 

 

If you accept Microevolution, i can't see why with more time you would not accept Macro (free from religious belief).

[gonpost]

Microevolution x Time = Macroevolution.

 

 

 

It's Pseudoscience

 

 

 

It's semantics, something which seems to be overly argued because people don't completely understand one another.

[BlueTear]

 

Err...adapting to your environment? High concentrations of melanin makes your skin more resistant to UV light. I am not trying to be racist or something, it's fact. Hell, I am white as a sheet but if I spend a lot of time outside I get extremely dark.

 

 

 

EDIT: I see what you are going for. It's still only microevolution. The person may look different, but they are still identical to me except for skin tone. Macroevolution has not taken place.

 

 

 

So you spend some time in the sun. Your skin darkens. I ask again; Why would your offspring gain a darker skin than you have? I mean, for a first generation, he's obviously going to spend more time in the sun than you did, but second and third generations will have lived the arbitarily time known as "their whole lives" under the same sun. How would the skin of the third generation descendant grow darker than the skin of the second generation?

 

 

 

 

 

And for the record, there is no race gene. Race is an arbitary division of humans based on phenotypes and rather than genotypes. If I were to say people with a certain size of lips were off a specific race I'd be no less wrong than any division based on something as superficial as skin colour.

 

 

 

Last time I heard a plausible evolutionary theory on skin colour it went something like this; The primal man moved out of africa, going north. Less sun on a dark skin meant less vitamin-D, and suddenly the darker the skin you had, the harder a time you had growing up. Survival of the fittest applies and soon enough we have different skin colours.

 

 

 

White rabits with red eyes are albino's.

[Death_By_Pod]

 

Perhaps they will listen, you never know. That's quite an interesting find and would map out human evolution pretty clearly. As I've been saying, there are no barriers to macroevolution in DNA. Infact, as your example points out, it suggests it.

 

 

 

Nope, ignored. It's like I don't exist.

 

I guess this happens when people attempt to reconcile two contradicting views, you pick one idea and ignore the other.

 

 

 

 

And mankind itself is so much more complex than anything else. In my opinion (which I am not pushing on you, so don't debate it) is that mankind has only been on this planet for 60,000 years, in almost the same state that we arrived in (barring many microadaptations over that time).

 

 

 

The very definition of irrational belief.

[Guest XplsvBam]

Any offspring with beneficial mutations (yes, they are rare but they do happen and are multiplied by different factors) will have a greater chance to procreate and spread thier genes. The genes that are in an organism will never change and will always be passed down the line untlill they are themselves mutated. It's a very fluid system, much more than the labels 'species' 'micro/macroevolution' would have you think.

 

 

 

How do our cells know if a mutation is beneficial or not? According to what you just said beneficial mutations are rare, meaning that there are non-beneficial mutations. Then you go on to say that the genes in the organism will never change and will always be passed down the line until they are themselves mutated.

 

 

 

According to what you just said the majority of mutations would be non-beneficial and these mutations would pass down until the entire organism is non-beneficially mutated. This leaves the result that macroevolution, if it did happen, would not be beneficial to any species.

 

 

 

phooey.

[Death_By_Pod]

How do our cells know if a mutation is beneficial or not? According to what you just said beneficial mutations are rare, meaning that there are non-beneficial mutations. Then you go on to say that the genes in the organism will never change and will always be passed down the line until they are themselves mutated.

 

 

 

According to what you just said the majority of mutations would be non-beneficial and these mutations would pass down until the entire organism is non-beneficially mutated. This leaves the result that macroevolution, if it did happen, would not be beneficial to any species.

 

 

 

phooey.

 

 

 

Is this for real? How do our cells know if a mutation is beneficial? That's like saying how does light know that it's the colour orange? We call orange light, orange out of convenience, not because it is intrinsically orange. Mutations aren't beneficial or non-beneficial, they are just labels given to mutations.

 

 

 

People with non-beneficial mutations tend not to pass down their genes, by the definition of what we mean by a non-beneficial gene. An analogy would be the difference between being fatally wounded and wounded. The people who are fatally wounded die by the definition of the term, yet both are intrinsically wounds.

 

 

 

Don't post any more until you get the basics down.

[Necromagus]

Non-beneficial mutations don't disprove macroevolution.

 

 

 

Basically, there are three possible qualities of mutation:

• [*:3vff6ecb]Damaging: the mutation has a negative effect on the individual's ability to reproduce and pass on its genes. These mutations quickly die out.
   
  [*:3vff6ecb]Useless: the mutation doesn't have a negative effect on the individual's ability to reproduce, but doesn't damage it either. The trait caused by the mutation isn't favoured, but it can still be passed on. A twist on useless mutations is the rudimentary organs; traits that were once useful but no longer are, yet still pass on to future generations because they haven't become damaging (yet). See: tailbone, appendix, etc..
   
  [*:3vff6ecb]Useful: the mutation has a positive effect on the individual's ability to reproduce. The trait gets passed on to future generations and becomes more common.

An example of a useless mutation that doesn't harm the individual's ability to reproduce is the sixth toe. Some people have it, yet it would give them no advantage if they were still living on the plains, hunting and gathering. At the same time, it wouldn't hurt to have either. All it really affects negatively is your ability to shop for shoes.

[Guest XplsvBam]

Non-beneficial mutations don't disprove macroevolution.

 

 

 

Basically, there are three possible qualities of mutation:

• [*:3gsmotxb]Damaging: the mutation has a negative effect on the individual's ability to reproduce and pass on its genes. These mutations quickly die out.
   
  [*:3gsmotxb]Useless: the mutation doesn't have a negative effect on the individual's ability to reproduce, but doesn't damage it either. The trait caused by the mutation isn't favoured, but it can still be passed on. A twist on useless mutations is the rudimentary organs; traits that were once useful but no longer are, yet still pass on to future generations because they haven't become damaging (yet). See: tailbone, appendix, etc..
   
  [*:3gsmotxb]Useful: the mutation has a positive effect on the individual's ability to reproduce. The trait gets passed on to future generations and becomes more common.

An example of a useless mutation that doesn't harm the individual's ability to reproduce is the sixth toe. Some people have it, yet it would give them no advantage if they were still living on the plains, hunting and gathering. At the same time, it wouldn't hurt to have either. All it really affects negatively is your ability to shop for shoes.

How do the cells realize that a mutation is beneficial or not? They don't. No matter how favored or not a trait is does not make cells self aware. Unless you are assuming that cells choose the better mutations over the bad mutations.

 

 

 

You are foolish. I'm not saying that to flame you I'm saying that to point out your blunder in trying to say that cells know the difference between a useful mutation and a bad mutation.

[darkmage099]

For the purpose of this discussion, the term species, from my perspective (and a widely used definition), will be a specific group of organisms unable to produce offspring with any other organism but those in it's groups.

 

 

 

Sorry if this hasn't been already said but...

 

 

 

 

 

A species is an organism that can reproduce with its own kind to reproduce fertile offspring. Dunno if that changes anything....

[gonpost]

Non-beneficial mutations don't disprove macroevolution.

 

 

 

Basically, there are three possible qualities of mutation:

• [*:3534dx57]Damaging: the mutation has a negative effect on the individual's ability to reproduce and pass on its genes. These mutations quickly die out.
   
  [*:3534dx57]Useless: the mutation doesn't have a negative effect on the individual's ability to reproduce, but doesn't damage it either. The trait caused by the mutation isn't favoured, but it can still be passed on. A twist on useless mutations is the rudimentary organs; traits that were once useful but no longer are, yet still pass on to future generations because they haven't become damaging (yet). See: tailbone, appendix, etc..
   
  [*:3534dx57]Useful: the mutation has a positive effect on the individual's ability to reproduce. The trait gets passed on to future generations and becomes more common.

An example of a useless mutation that doesn't harm the individual's ability to reproduce is the sixth toe. Some people have it, yet it would give them no advantage if they were still living on the plains, hunting and gathering. At the same time, it wouldn't hurt to have either. All it really affects negatively is your ability to shop for shoes.

How do the cells realize that a mutation is beneficial or not? They don't. No matter how favored or not a trait is does not make cells self aware. Unless you are assuming that cells choose the better mutations over the bad mutations.

 

 

 

You are foolish. I'm not saying that to flame you I'm saying that to point out your blunder in trying to say that cells know the difference between a useful mutation and a bad mutation.

 

 

 

FFS, XplsvBam, use some common sense. Stop thinking so literally. The organism doesn't choose, the cells don't choose. Duh. There are mutations (completely by chance), and those mutations that are detrimental to the creature will cause it to not reproduce or to die out in time because it cannot live in its environment. If it, on the other hand, produces a mutation that is beneficial to surviving in its environment or allows it to access something new as a food source, then it will go on to live and procreate because it can survive in its environment well. This is called natural selection (essentially). And by the way, mutations can be very small, such as a bird with a slightly larger than normal beak size or something, allowing it to break open a type of nut that its parents couldn't have because they had smaller beaks. That's just an example.

 

 

 

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of even the most basic concepts of evolution and natural selection. Please, teach yourself.

[Necromagus]

Non-beneficial mutations don't disprove macroevolution.

 

 

 

Basically, there are three possible qualities of mutation:

• [*:1hoj7cxx]Damaging: the mutation has a negative effect on the individual's ability to reproduce and pass on its genes. These mutations quickly die out.
   
  [*:1hoj7cxx]Useless: the mutation doesn't have a negative effect on the individual's ability to reproduce, but doesn't damage it either. The trait caused by the mutation isn't favoured, but it can still be passed on. A twist on useless mutations is the rudimentary organs; traits that were once useful but no longer are, yet still pass on to future generations because they haven't become damaging (yet). See: tailbone, appendix, etc..
   
  [*:1hoj7cxx]Useful: the mutation has a positive effect on the individual's ability to reproduce. The trait gets passed on to future generations and becomes more common.

An example of a useless mutation that doesn't harm the individual's ability to reproduce is the sixth toe. Some people have it, yet it would give them no advantage if they were still living on the plains, hunting and gathering. At the same time, it wouldn't hurt to have either. All it really affects negatively is your ability to shop for shoes.

How do the cells realize that a mutation is beneficial or not? They don't. No matter how favored or not a trait is does not make cells self aware. Unless you are assuming that cells choose the better mutations over the bad mutations.

 

 

 

You are foolish. I'm not saying that to flame you I'm saying that to point out your blunder in trying to say that cells know the difference between a useful mutation and a bad mutation.

Where, at any point, did I say that the cell knows what is going on? All I did was point out that there are benificial and non-benificial mutations, how both can be passed down, and why the idea you suggested of an entire organism being non-beneficially mutated is ridiculous.

 

 

 

Yes, most mutations are not benificial. Yes, cells don't know whether a mutation is benificial or not. However, most mutations are also harmless, either because the cells in which they occur simply die out or because their effect is not significant. I'll try to slow it down for you:

 

 

 

1. Mutations occur.

 

2. Animals will reproduce.

 

3. The chances for reproduction are limited due to various natural circumstances (limited amount of food, limited amount of mates, etc.)

 

4. Because of those limitations, only the species that are best adapted to them will reproduce.

 

5. Reproduction causes these adaptations to be passed down to future generations.

 

 

 

A. A mutation is harmful and isn't beneficial.

 

B. A mutation isn't harmful and isn't beneficial.

 

C. A mutation isn't harmful and is benificial.

 

 

 

A

 

 

 

The mutation has a negative effect on the individiual's chances to reproduce. Reproduction will occur at a less frequent rate for individuals with this mutation, and the mutation will eventually die out.

 

 

 

B

 

 

 

The mutation has no effect on the individual's chances to reproduce. The rate of reproduction of the mutation is dependant on other factors. The mutation isn't encouraged, but isn't discouraged either. See: six toes.

 

 

 

C

 

 

 

The mutation has a positive effect on the individual's chances to reproduce. Reproduction will occur at a more frequent rate for individuals with this mutation, and the mutation will become more frequent within the species.

[Guest XplsvBam]

 

[bleep], XplsvBam, use some common sense. Stop thinking so literally. The organism doesn't choose, the cells don't choose. Duh. There are mutations (completely by chance), and those mutations that are detrimental to the creature will cause it to not reproduce or to die out in time because it cannot live in its environment. If it, on the other hand, produces a mutation that is beneficial to surviving in its environment or allows it to access something new as a food source, then it will go on to live and procreate because it can survive in its environment well. This is called natural selection (essentially). And by the way, mutations can be very small, such as a bird with a slightly larger than normal beak size or something, allowing it to break open a type of nut that its parents couldn't have because they had smaller beaks. That's just an example.

 

 

 

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of even the most basic concepts of evolution and natural selection. Please, teach yourself.

First off generally mutations are bad. If by chance you get a beneficial mutation you have already, more than likely, wiped out a species. But this is how I interpret mutation, if it is generally bad the outcome is going to be generally bad. This is basic common sense.

 

 

 

Second, what you just described with the birds beak would explain that mutation would know when to occur, this is not the case. The beak would adapt but it would not mutate.

[Satenza]

If it is a generally bad outcome then than would allow for evolution to become more rapid. Can you tell us what your argument is against evolution because it is terribly confusing.

[insane]

The problem with macroevolution is that it is untestable. We can't just sit back for millions of years to test this theory and at the moment there is no other way for us to test it.

[Guest XplsvBam]

If it is a generally bad outcome then than would allow for evolution to become more rapid. Can you tell us what your argument is against macroevolution because it is terribly confusing.

My argument against macroevolution is that it can't be proven. I'm not trying to disprove macroevolution I'm just pointing out the Fallacies and misconceptions of macroevolution.

 

 

 

Most people for macroevolution on these forums argue that mutation is what causes macroevolution, regardless if this is true or not does not prove that macroevolution has ever or will ever happen. I'm also saying that cells don't choose good/bad mutations. And if a mutations are generally bad then the outcomes of mutations are generally bad. How is this hard to follow?