Whats the difference?

Question

Whats the difference between Evolution and mutation?

After posting a question:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AsxhqpV.D9V_O1pQHu62fB7sy6IX?qid=20060831091406AACZ6UU

I got a few responses that seperated evolution from mutation. Personally I dont see any difference. Both accour so that the organism has a better chance at survival.

Also got a few responses mentioning micro-evolution! In order for there to be micro-evolution there would also have to be macro-evolution, otherwise the micro part would just be redundant. It would be like having an "authors preffered version" of a book without having a regular version of the book.

So 3 questions really.
1. Whats the difference between mutation and evolution?
2. How can there be micro-evolution without macro-evolution?
3. what do you call it when a virus changes itself to overcome obstaciles and increase its chances for survival?

iamisabaddon:

So its true that when biblethumpers cannot come up with a vilid answer they resort to typing babble.

Answer 1

Evolution is just a mutation that continues in all future generations.

Sort of like 4-foot tall women with flat heads, no teeth and own liquor stores.

Answer 2

Microevolution doesn't involve one kind changing into another. Macroevolution does. We've never seen one kind change into another. We've seen "horse evolution", but through all of the fossils, they're still horses. Microevolution is change within a kind, horses changing, new species arising, things like that. But macroevolution is different, it involves one kind changing into another, and we've never seen that.

Macroevolution requires that new genetic information be created, which has never happened, and if evolution were real, it should be happening fairly often. But microevolution occurs bc animals can become separated from the main group and form a new species over several generations. This isn't evolution, since the smaller group lost the genes that were in the main group. Macroevolution needs to produce new genes, and mutations only destroy, or at best, rearrange them.

When a virus develops resistance, it's microevolution. The genes for it were already there, we just didn't know it until we tried the vaccine on the virus and saw "oh, that one didn't die, so what the vaccine attacks must not be there or is different."

Microevolution is observed, but it doesn't mean macroevolution happens. Microevolution only involves a rearrangement or destruction of genes. Macroevolution needs new genes to arise, which never happens, at least not often enough to make evolution credible.

Answer 3

1.) The difference between mutation and generalized evolution is this: I breed fish. If, for example, my next brood were to have a fish that had two pectoral fins on one side, and none on the other, that is a mutation (a harmful one, one he certainly won't survive); another which protruded his 'teeth' to be more like a parrot-fish's 'teeth' (possibly harmful, possibly helpful); and a third which has caused him to have stronger bones (helpful). All three are technically mutations. However, only the third example is classified as evolution, since evolution requires some degree of benefit to be present.

2.) However, at very best, the above example can only cause micro-evolution. Microevolution allows the change of existing information. Hence, why we see fair skinned people, dark skinned people, light hair, dark har, blue eyes, green eyes, brown eyes. Those are all mutations of genetic information that already exist.

Macroevolution requires that previously non-existant information is creat... um... caused to exist... through a mutation... if we were to look at the eye's "evolution", we would have to look at a cell of an 'early' light-sensitive creature... well, it's pseudoeyes are little more than photoreceptive cells. That's all well and good... but the serious question lies in the fact of A.) What influenced the creation of that particular cell? Darwin proposed that evolution occurs because either 'proper living' [for lack of any better term for fish...] encouraged the strengthening of the gene, or that outside influences caused the gene to arise [both theories we know to be faulty, as a strong man is quite able to have a weakling of a child, and despite 6000 years of motherhood {or 200,000 years, depending on POV}, moms still don't have 4 arms, no matter how much we desperately need them]... B.) What caused a synchronous 'happenstance appearing' [can't very well say 'creation', now, can we?] of nerves that were capable of transmitting the new information to the brain... C.) What caused a synchronous 'happenstance appearing' of brain cells capable of interpreting the new information? and D.) What caused a synchronous 'happenstance appearing' of a large enough cluster of these specialized cells, large enough so that anything gleaned from them would cause the creatur... um... animal to benefit from the new information?

Microevolution and selective breeding are quite capable of existing within a Creationist's worldview. God created everything, having every possible kind of genetic information conceivable within the original pairs of beings, and from then on, each generation becomes a little more seperate from the last, losing a little information each generation due to the results of sin's existance and inbreeding. It is akin to saying "I have a bag of red and blue marbles, and since I only want red ones, I'm going to pull out all of the blue ones until I'm left with the red ones".

Macroevolution and speciation does not, since that teaches that God did not create everything as it was to begin with, and random chance did instead. This is akin to saying "I have a bag of red and blue marbles, and since I only want green ones, I'm going to sit here, pull them out one at a time, look at it, and put it back in, until I get a green one... Given enough time, one of them will turn green (to which the kid next to you remarks, "No, it'll still be a shade of blue, just an ugly, dull blue")".

To be an evolutionist, you need both micro- and macro-evolution for anything to happen, since you have no means from which microevolution needs to work. To be a creationist, only micro-evolution is taken seriously, because this is common sense (pull out the reds, all you're left with is blue), and God took care of any 'macroevolution' back in the first 6 days.

3.) This is called adaptation. This is not a form of evolution. This is no different than temperature regulation inside of warm-blooded animals, and in the case of viruses, also a form of microevolution (kill off all the ones weak to X, all that are left are those strong to it).

Answer 4

Evolution occurs because advantageous mutations take place. But all mutations do not necessarily have to be advantageous.

Answer 5

god begins to hate those that hate HIM.