a swing and a rocket

Over and over again the claim is made and the challenge presented regarding how microevolution leads to macroevolution. Let's look at what is being talked about, and then let's look at why one cannot lead to the other.

What is referred to as 'macroevolution' is the type of evolution people argue about. The claim is made that, given enough time, enough fortuitous mutations, the right kind of natural selection, and a favorable environment, some kind of single-celled ancestor or ancestors gave rise to the multitude of life forms we see around us today. This is the type of evolution that claims that some reptiles evolved into birds, that man and ape had a common ancestor, and that we all came from fish even farther back.

Microevolution, on the other hand, is simply another word for variation. Variation produced our different breeds of dogs and cats and horses. We work constantly with variation in breeding and experience it constantly in our own families. Variation has to do with eye color, skin color, hair/fur color, markings, size -- that sort of thing.

The claim is made by those supporting evolution that by allowing variations to pile up on one another slowly, through time, a lizard can become an ape, or a bacteria became a bear.

To illustrate as simply as possible why this cannot happen, think of variations in any population as being a swing. There is a back-and-forth idea to variation. For instance, with size: there will be a minimum size for a type of animal and a maximum size. And all in between might be seen. But the size variation is hooked firmly to the swingset -- the genetics. Coloring is the same -- some extremes and all sorts of combinations in between.

But size stays size and color stays color.

Evolution, on the other hand, wants that swing to become disconnected from the swingset and act like a rocket -- taking off for parts unknown.

Can't happen.

First of all, variations have maximums and minimums. Secondly, they do not build on one another to produce something 'new.' Thirdly, when a cell splits, or buds (producing a new cell), there is a complicated checking mechanism which goes on where the chromosomes are concerned. Most mistakes (read 'mutations') simply can't get through. Of those that do, most do not appear to be expressed in the organism -- that means we don't see what effect they have. Of those which are expressed, it's about a thousand to one in favor of the mutation being damaging or lethal to the organism.

So get that beneficial mutation. One time. Then, for another one to show up, there are about a thousand negative mutations that have to be dealt with first.

That rocket can't take off.

Meanwhile the swing is still swinging -- back AND forth. No direction -- just back and forth, showing variations around a mean -- the chain on the swing is just so long.

And that's why variation, or 'microevolution' cannot be equated with or lead to basic body changes, or 'macroevolution.' Variations work independently of each other; they only go so far; and all the changes of color or size or hair or fur type simply are not going to cause a cold-blooded animal to change its entire metabolism to warm-blooded. They are not going to produce extra chambers for a heart, turn a lizard's breast bone upside down (for becoming a bird), produce new bone structure, cause joints to form -- the list is incredibly long.

But evolution says the rocket not only took off from the swingset, but that all these things happened SIMULTANEOUSLY!

God, on the other hand, states in Genesis 1 that He created life by type or kind. That just makes a whole lot more sense given what we have learned about genetics in the past hundred years!

Swings don't become rockets.

 

It has nothing to do with incredulity, Elena. That is a cop-out answer from you so you don't have to deal with it.

Variations are NOT the source of profound morphological changes. Variations do not produce directional change, but literally swing back and forth. This is known. Even with lowly bacteria, this is known. They have hot spots where they mutate 'back and forth.'

Nor do variations build on one another. There is no incredulity there, just a statement of fact.

Try dealing with it.

 

Meatros: One does not need to know WHY something is to know THAT it is. We deal with gravity daily -- depend on it, in fact -- and yet who knows WHAT it is? or even WHY it is?

I can give you some common sense responses on the limitations of mutations: they are limited to what does not produce disability or death in the organism. They are limited to what can be integrated into the system without disturbing it to too great a degree. They are limited by the ability of the cell/organism to react to the new directions. Why does this occur this way? Presumably because the cell/organism is so finely tuned in so many areas of its operation that it cannot tolerate much change and still function. One does not simply throw a new gear into a watch for improved working!

I also do not think you are understanding about variations. You mentioned dogs. That is variation. Lots of it.

And they are all still dogs.

That is what I am trying to get at. You can vary what you have til the cows come home, but you are not going to change the basic identity of it. It will always and forever simply be a variation. And if you want to propose that variations build on one another to produce new forms and functions in fish or birds or any of the kingdom animalia, please demonstrate how that can and has happened genetically. A world of people would be interested to know!

You mentioned that my 'barrier' is 'artificial.' No, I am not making up anything. I am commenting on what is. There is a difference.

My sources? Oh, I just make up everything as I go, don't you know? I don't do any reading, any research, any studying on my own. I just blabber away here in pure ignorance.

Travelsong: Variations are limited genetically. Mutations can delete. Sometimes these deletions are beneficial. However where the item came from in the first place so it could be deleted is not a matter of mutations. They can't do that. They DON'T do that.

Nor do variations pile up one on top of another to produce something entirely new in time. We don't see that, either! Nor is there a known mechanism for that.

The illustrated supposed lineage you copied on your post (from TalkOrigins?) is purely imaginary. There is nothing to suggest that one of these animals became another, regardless of time. There is no known way, genetically, for that to happen, and plenty of evidence against it. It is wishful thinking and I wish myself that evolutionists would at least admit to that and quit acting as thought these made-up lineages were fact.

It was made up to try to support the idea of evolution in the first place. Evolution was the presupposition that went into building that 'lineage.' The lineage shows only three things:

1. These animals all lived at some time in the past.
2. Evolution is presumed from the beginning.
3. Evolutionists have great and desperate imagination.

The fossil record, Travelsong, proves nothing about lineage! All that is interpretation! And sometimes, as with the horse data on TO, the interpretations are deceptive to a high degree.

ITM, mutations ARE random. That is the whole point of the thing. Adaptation can make use of one or two, but they do not inspire them. For instance, the famous study regarding the Bahamanian lizards: if they had not grown legs of various lengths to begin with, as part of a natural variation in the animal, there would have been nothing for natural selection to select. The same goes for mutations. The mutation arrives first. If it is helpful, great. If it isn't, goodbye organism! However, again, remember that even potentially helpful mutations are vastly outnumbered by others that must be dealt with before another helpful mutations might surface at all.

I believe it has been estimated that once the heritable mutation rate in a population reaches one per generation, that that population is in a state of 'error catastrophe' -- bound for extinction with no way out.

That means it takes MORE than one thousand generations for a second beneficial mutation to be added to the population -- and that is assuming the first did not get bred out accidently (for it would not have appeared in the whole population at once, but would have had to establish itself via breeding and generations. And one of the most common effects of sexual reproduction is the eliminations of mutations -- of any variety).

So if you can only add one positive mutation -- assuming that it is generalized in the population -- every two thousand generations, evolution is not going to cut it.

It's the data which does in evolution. It is only imagination and desperation which sustain it. Variation is not, again, the issue. The ability of variation to even eventually produce new forms and functions is.


You mentioned insects. Their ability to achieve population-wide pesticide resistance has to do with the fact that this variation was already present in some members, or they would not have survived to breed at all! And when the others died off, guess who was left to pass on that variation in greater numbers? This is adaptation of a population through 'natural selection' (in quotes because I don't know how natural insecticides are!). It is 'improvement' by deleting a massive section of the population (and thus any potential variability they might have carried in their genes) through poisoning and leaving only those who can survive the poison to remain and breed.

Bacteria are in a much better position regarding anti-bacterials, for they can mutate from generation to generation in their hot spots and thus produce given varieties even from small and limited populations. However animals are not in that position. Sexually reproducing animals achieve variety via sexual mixing of genetic material, thus producing new sets of interactions among certain genes (most traits, it is appearing, are the results of genetic interaction; it is not one trait per gene which was originally thought and taught). When an animal population loses a large segment of itself, that potential for variation is gone for good. The population is depleted, the gene pool reduced, and the possibility of becoming an endangered species enhanced -- for if they no longer have the potential for variation needed to cope with another change in environment, they are goners.

As far as insects changing color is concerned, that is part of their genetic heritage from the start. They either can or can't change to match background. Needing to will not cut it. The ability is either there or it ain't.

 

Meatros, the burden of proof is never on the negative. You are the one asserting that variation can lead to rather massive morphological changes. Please give evidence of that. I know you can give interpretations of the fossil record and such, but so can I -- different interpretations, too! I want evidence, not assertions and not interpretations. It's time you put your money -- proverbially -- where your mouth is. You want to show me that variations become major changes? I am waiting.

You didn't really want to use FOP as an example of anything beneficial happening in that kind of a mutation, did you?

FOP is short for Fibrodysplasia Ossificans Progressiva. The disease is also known as Myositis Ossificans Progressiva; the name was modified in the 1970s to acknowledge the involvement of other soft, or fibrous, tissues in addition to muscle. FOP is a rare genetic disorder in which bone forms in muscles, tendons, ligaments, and other connective tissues. Bridges of extra bone form across the joints in characteristic patterns, progressively restricting movement. FOP is a disease in which the body produces not just too much bone, but an extra skeleton that immobilizes the joints of the body.
from http://www.ifopa.org/whatis/index.htm

If you want to convince anyone that that kind of mutation is going to help out with evolution, I think you have a LOT of talking to do!

In the meantime, please don't ask me to take stuff on Talk Origins seriously. I have seen too many of their idiocies to be willing to respect much of anything on there -- ESPECIALLY when it has to do with 'common descent.'

Galatian, Interesting word change there: from beneficial to favorable, along with the definition about simply leaving more progeny! Sorry, but that doesn't fly. We are talking about mutations needed to 'morph' (using Meatros' term) one sort of thing into another sort of thing. And the fact is that when a species is well-suited to its environment, changes will not increase survival of progeny, but decrease it.

We not only need a mutation which will DO something, but one that is selected for, as well, because of what it does, and then which will also work in concert with another mutation which will DO something and also be selected for ALONG WITH the first mutation -- in the meantime fighting off about 2000 other negative mutations and surviving sexual reproduction deletions.

Although your post indicated a link, I couldn't find one. But you said that six favorable mutations had been documented. If sickle cell is one, scratch it. It is only beneficial in particular circumstances and lethal when inherited from both the mother and the father.

In the meantime, here's that old, somewhat longer, list of a FEW of the DOCUMENTED negative mutations we know of which have been detrimental to the human race:

=============

on p. 51 of the October 1999 issue of National Geographic, there is the following list of problems associated with various mutations in human chromosomes.

Chromosome 1
-- malignant melanoma
-- prostate cancer
-- deafness

Chromosome 2
-- congenital hypothyroidism
-- colorectal cancer

Chromosome 3
-- susceptibility to HIV infection
-- small-cell lung cancer
-- dementia

Chromosome 4
-- Huntington's Disease
-- polycystic kidney disease

Chromosome 5
-- spinal muscular atrophy
-- endometrial carcinoma

Chromosome 6
-- hemochronatosis
-- dyslexia
-- schizophrenia
-- myoclonus epilepsy
-- estrogen resistance

Chromosome 7
-- Growth hormone deficient dwarfism
-- pregnancy-induced hypertension
-- cystic fibrosis
-- severe obesity

Chromosome 8
-- hemolytic anemia
-- Burkitt's lymphoma

Chromosome 9
-- dilated cardiomyopathy
-- fructose intolerance

Chromosome 10
-- congenital cataracts
-- late onset cockayne syndrome

Chromosome 11
-- sickle cell anemia
-- albinism

Chromosome 12
-- inflammatory bowel disease
-- rickets

Chromosome 13
-- breast cancer, early onset
-- retinoblastoma
-- pancreatic cancer

Chromosome 14
-- leukemia/ T-cell lymphoma
-- goiter

Chromosome 15
-- Marfan's syndrome
-- juvenile epilepsy

Chromosome 16
-- polycystic kidney disease
-- familial gastric cancer
-- Tuberous sclerosis-2

Chromosome 17 (done in detail as an example)

RP13 -- retinitis pigmentosa
CTAA2 -- cataract
SLC2A4 -- diabetes susceptibility
TP53 -- cancer
MYO15 -- deafness
PMP22 -- Charcot-Marie-Tooth neuropathy
COL1A1 -- osteogenesis imperfecta; osteoporosis
SLC6A4 -- anxiety-related personality traits
BLMH -- Alzheimer's disease susceptibility
NF1 -- neurofibromatosis
RARA -- leukemia
MAPT -- dementia
SGCA -- muscular dystrophy
BRCA1 -- breast cancer; ovarian cancer
PRKCA -- pituitary tumor
MPO -- yeast infection susceptibility
GH1 -- growth hormone deficiency
DCP1 -- myocardian infarction susceptibility
SSTR2 -- small-cell lung cancer

Chromosome 18
-- diabetes mellitus
-- familial carpal tunnel syndrome

Chromosome 19
-- myotonic dystrophy
-- malignant hyperthermia

Chromosome 20
-- isolated growth hormone deficiency
-- fatal familial insomnia
-- Creutzfeldt-Jakob's disease

Chromosome 21
-- autoimmune polyglandular disease
-- amyotrophic lateral sclerosis

Chromosome 22
-- Ewing's sarcome
-- giant-cell fibroblastoma

X Chromosome
-- colorblindness
-- mental retardation
-- gout
-- hemophilia
-- male pseudohermaphroditism

Y Chromosome
-- gonadal dysgenesis

Mitochondrial DNA
-- Leber's hereditary optic neuropathy
-- diabetes and deafness
-- myopathy and cardiomyopathy
-- dystonia

====================

How long has the human race been around, you ask? About 8000 years...

 

Same genes make the same proteins which is one of the building blocks of life as we know it. Same as me asking you, "Please explain why bridges and houses and boardwalks are all made of wood." That's the material people use for them. God used the material of his choice for living things.

Transitional fossils, sir, are in the eye of the beholder. They are not anything but interpretation, as I previously stated.

Now, please show me genetically how variation can become gross morphological change in the way of evolution. This is what you claim can happen. I am waiting to see evidence. Not interpretation, and not questions back at me, but evidence for what you say is fact.

 

Meatros, I have to say that some of your questions and comments have shown so little knowledge that I have wondered how old YOU are! So unless you want to divulge your age, let Christian alone. I am 55, by the way.

Now, about your post.

1. Speciation is NOT being argued! That has been said so many times I wonder what your memory retention time is!

2. I never argued anything about a single mutation leading to morphological changes. Please read my material again. You are knocking down a straw man. While that can be fun, it has nothing to do with this discussion.

3. The 'evidences' on TO have been more than adequately refuted here:
http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp

4. You assert variations built on top of each other through time can lead to gross morphological changes. Please give some kind of evidence for this which is hard science -- as in genetics -- and not someone's interpretation of the fossil record. Please provide evidence for what you assert happened.

5. You said I had an ill-defined idea of species. Would you please tell me what you think my definition of a species is? I know what I think and I know what I have written on this forum, and I am betting you are pretty clueless as to what I have said there.

6. You wrote, "My point was to show that genes are capable of a wide variety of things, including changing entirely. I mentioned nothing of beneficial, although certainly you would have to accept that out of the billions of variations that occur, some would have to be beneficial, wouldn't they?"

And I have the feeling you are thinking of mutations as being variations. They are not. They are two different things. Mutations can provide some variations -- often sterile -- but all variations are most certainly not mutations. You need to make your points more precise. IN the meantime, most variations are neither harmful nor beneficial. Most mutations which are expressed are harmful and many are lethal. There is no rule that once in awhile a mutation must be beneficial. So the answer to what I think you are asking there is 'no.'

7. I have read extensively on TO in the past. I will not do so again. I am disgusted by much of the misinformation I see there as well as the attitude. In the meantime, I subscribe to Nature as well as a number of other science magazines both on and off the web. I am not totally ignorant.

8. I have an elementary understanding of genes. If you think that because I didn't mention the amino acids I don't know what I am talking about, I'm sorry to disappoint you. You either got the point of what I was saying or you didn't. It looks like you didn't.

9. It is not the DNA similarities which are turning out the be the main thing, if you have been keeping up with the recent articles in genetics -- it is the 'junk' in between which is starting to grab attention. Timing mechanisms and regulators are showing up as being quite different between man and ape/chimp. It's a different set of directions for the same materials. Or, another way of putting it is that the early claims of similarity were based on very inadequate knowledge. Our knowledge, by the way, is still something less than adequate for the claims that continue being made!

Galatian: oh, it's much worse for me than you thought! Remember that Flood you say didn't happen? The one in Genesis 7? Well there was a pretty severe bottleneck for the human race there. Only 8 survived...

And they were exposed to the first radioactive material on the surface of the earth when the fountains exploded upward, bringing pulverized material with them. This means there was a rash of deleterious mutations possible with those first generations after the Flood -- and that is something we may be seeing reflected in the sudden drop in life expectancies listed. Of course, I know you consider all that allegory, but you will have to realize that we are coming at this thing from two entirely different points of view: I'm accepting what the Bible says about the age of the earth, the creation and condition of man, the reality of the Flood, and the ages of the ancients.

You have your own spin to all of that. So just recognize that where you see a problem in what I am saying, I see a pretty big one in what you are saying, too. I see a source for a number of deleterious mutations immediately after the Flood, and we have done ourselves no good in the way we live today in terms of slowing down the rate of mutations we are seeing. But again, you may remember me saying a long time ago, that I have yet to hear of a new mommy and daddy who, when being told their newborn has a mutation, say excitedly, "Wow! is it a good one?"

People know.

Even if the scientists don't. But I think they really do....