Re: Evolution is not a fact

On Jun 27, 9:22 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 21:09:30 -0500, Suzanne wrote:

Hi Suzanne.  I gather you've been posting here a while (much longer than
I have).  I have a few questions about what you've written below.

Macroevolution is not the same thing as microevolution. If it were, then
macro would be called micro, and there would be no need for two
different terms. Macro is supposed to involve a DNA change, whereas
micro does not have a DNA change.

Can you walk me through how you arrived at the idea "micro does not have
a DNA change"?  I'm pretty sure you wouldn't have found that in any
biology textbook written in the last 30 years.  I'm also pretty certain
that the Intelligent Design folks haven't claimed any such thing, and
frankly I can't bring to mind any YEC or OEC who would make that claim,
either (although my knowledge here is certainly not encyclopedic).

Well, some particularly and spectacularly ignorant creationists make
the claim that all the 'beneficial' variations seen in organisms was
already there since that species was 'magically poofed' into
existence, often in hiding somewhere. [When it is pointed out that
bacteria are haploid and traits cannot hide in bacteria, especially in
colonies that arise from single individuals, they often resort to
calling the phenotypic variation producing, say, antibiotic
resistance, 'adaptation' and pretend that it is not due to genetic
mutation.

All usually wrapped up in the idea that *all* mutation is necessarily
detrimental. Therefore, any mutation that is 'beneficial' must have
always been present, but merely hidden. And, as evidence of that,
they point out that the variations that get selected for *really
already existed* in the organism. [As if selection could work on a
non-existent trait.]

The fact is that *all* genetically-based phenotypic variation had to
arise by alteration of a genome at some point in time. The only known
mechanism for altering genomes is random (wrt need) mutation and all
the known observed variations that exist are consistent with known
mechanisms and consequences of random mutation. Selection, for or
against a variant, or neutral drift of a variant is a second step that
only occurs after there is a genetically-based phenotypic variation to
act upon.

Did you come up with this idea yourself?  Did you read it somewhere?  If
the latter, I'd really appreciate it if you'd share the reference.  If
it's the former, then you're obviously comfortable redefining a technical
term to mean exactly the opposite of how its used by people "skilled in
the art".  Could you follow up on this -- how does doing this advance the
understanding of your argument?

Macro is something that has occurred
above the species level, and micro is something that happens within a
species' level. You evidently believe that the process is the same and
that when a lifeform in one species gets enough variation changes within
it's DNA, then the DNA changes and it becomes another species, capable
of producing offspring with the supposedly new DNA change, within the
supposed new species estate. This is a crude example, but it would be
about like me taking a liter of cola, and pouring it into a giant glass,
bigger than people drink. If I keep on pouring slowly and steadily it
would suddenly become a glass of orange juice because the DNA changed.
That is not a very likely thing to happen.

Agreed, but examples that don't involve descent with modification and
natural selection tend to be very poor illustrations of evolution.  As a
counterexample, take your phrase "orange juice":

Orange:
c.1300, from O.Fr. orenge (12c.), from M.L. pomum de orenge, from It.
arancia, originally narancia (Venetian naranza), alt. of Arabic naranj,
from Pers. narang, from Skt. naranga-s "orange tree," of uncertain
origin. Loss of initial n- probably due to confusion with definite
article (e.g. une narange, una narancia), but perhaps infl. by Fr. or
"gold." ... Not used as the name of a color until 1542.

Juice:
c.1290, from O.Fr. jus, from L. jus "broth, sauce, juice," from PIE base
*yus- (cf. Skt. yus- "broth," O.C.S. jucha "broth, soup," Lith. juse
"fish soup"). Meaning "liquor" is from 1828; that of "electricity" is
first recorded 1896. Juicy "lively, interesting" first recorded in this
sense 1838.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=orange+juice&searchmode=none

Now there's some descent with modification and natural selection.



Suzanne


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Bipedalism in different substrates
    ... evolution occurs when a species ... It does this by reducing variation. ... > Selection is a brake, a mechanism to reduce variation, to weed out ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Darwins Variation
    ... Was it just that variation was observed but the ... I haven't actually read "Origin of Species" and I'm curious ... with that idea (for a number of obvious reasons). ... Selection, however it is important to biology and the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Darwins Variation
    ... selection to act upon? ... Was it just that variation was observed but the ... I haven't actually read "Origin of Species" and I'm curious ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Darwins Variation
    ... Since Darwin didn't have the benefit of knowledge of DNA and genes, ... selection to act upon? ... Was it just that variation was observed but the ... I haven't actually read "Origin of Species" and I'm curious ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: What do Dawkins, Ham and Dembski have in common?
    ... exist below species level. ... variation after the flood, but this is not what we see in nature. ... That's not what "Darwinists" ... "fact of evolution" is rendered to be an inference that begs the ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading