Macro-evolution vs. micro-evolution - how can you not walk a mile by taking a single step at a time?

Question

In other words, what mechanism do you propose that is in place in organisms to limit changes?

Imagine this, Thomas... you are walking along your favorite hiking trail. You come around a corner and find another hiker comming towards you. You are nowhere near roads nor any kind of transportation. How would you think the hiker got there?

It is the creationist that says, there is no way the hiker could have gotten there by walking. After all, you didn't see it happen.

Perhaps you have a point Thomas, maybe this does not PROVE it to you. But it sure does seem highly probable.

iraqisax: Corn evolved from a grain called tiosinte. As for dogs, what do you think wolves, coyotes, dingos, heyenas, and jackals are - to name a few?

Oh, and here's some silly examples of one species becomming another presented by some dumb scientists:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

Thomas, to see your error, think of flying squirrls, or many insects that are barely able to fly (they can really only go a few feet at a time).

jonmcn49: Be nice, Thomas may not understand evolution nor science well, but he is not insulting anyone. Besides, he is trying and insults do none of us any good. Just present your evidence, you know you have it and it's all that is needed.

Thomas: now you have come full circle. Go back to the original question... How can you not walk a mile by taking a single step at a time? That is how evolution happens - a small step at a time, and lots of small changes adding up over immense spans of time. We would not expect to see large changes in a species over a few generations (in fact, that would be good evidence against evolution). Since there is no mechanisim that permits change to stop, we would expect changes to accumulate. Again, you never saw the hiker take his steps, but you have no reason to think otherwise. In fact, you've found his foot prints and campsite in the direction form which he came. That is evidence; and here is some for evolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

Thomas, be sure and read the previous paragraph more carefully. Again, if we saw something very different from a mosquito evolve from a mosquito, that would be evidence AGAINST evolution.

Again, we should not expect to see anything other than a plant to evolve from a plant. But we will see new species, then eventually genera, then famalies, ect.

Please read the book I recommended to you (Finding Darwin's God). That will put you on a better base of understanding of how evolution is supposed to work.

Also, again just try to answer the quesiton: How can you NOT walk a mile by taking a single step at a time. You keep writing back to me and you are saying "wait, I want to see you leap 1000 feet at a time." Then I say to you, "no, we are talking about walking."

Joseph s:
Did you write "rubbish" at the end of your response because that was what your resonse was?

Please answer the original question.

Thomas, when you say you want to see a non-mosquito come from a mosquito, you are asking to see 1000 ft leaps. It's just not how evolution works. And you are right, I do think that the hiker has indeede walked the distance due to the evidence he left behind.

You were right Thomas, this is getting long. I'm gald to see you have a better understanding than I thought. I think (maybe) the point you're missing is that we should never expect to see major changes in our lifetime. But I see what you're really wondering about.

I'm going to assume that what you want to see Thomas is change above the species level (since I've already provided evidence for speciation). Well, evolution tells us that this is what takes place over a time span of hundreds of thousands of years. We (scientists) have only been carefullly observing species for about 500 years at best.

But remember the point of the question (which you never attempted to answer) small steps, will accumulate to larger distances, given enough time. Always remember my analogy and the fact that I said we never saw our hiker take all of his steps, we only have evidence to work with. So here, is evidence for macro-evolution. I recommend you look at it carefully and please write if you have any questions.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
So, to keep this short,

Answer 1

I don't know what the mechanism is but you can't prove that someone walked a mile just because you saw them take a step. Even if evolution is true I fail to see what your line of reasoning actually demonstrates.

I think your analogy has broken down, as all analogies eventually do. It seems an anachronism to me, for someone to say that one species changes into another when all we have ever observed is species adapting to their environment. People look at nature and say things that amount to, we know this creature evolved from a lower form because we know evolution is true. Then I hear things that sound an awful lot like, we know evolution is true because we know such and such a creature evolved from a lower form. I do not claim to be an expert in the sciences but it seems patently absurd to say that a non flying animal just up and evolved wings to adapt to it's surroundings. At what point did the non flying variety start jumping out of trees and trying to fly. And how would that failed attempt at flying ever transfer genetic material to the subsequent generation of animals? I know my response is simplistic, but have I made an error in logic? If so I don't see it.

I looked at your link and the flies are still flies, the fish are still fish, and the mosquitoes are still mosquitoes. I want to see a mosquito becoming a non-mosquito. You are still reading a pretty big jump into the situation and I maintain that it is a jump based on your already assumed position. That is fine of course, since we all have presuppositions, and indeed without them the world would not make any sense, but I still don't see what any of this proves.

Do you not see that you are reasoning in circles? You are assuming a mile long journey based on seeing one step. I need to know if a mosquito has ever become a non-mosquito. Has one?

Guy above me: Do plants become non-plants? No...alright then.

I am not saying that I want to see 1,000 feet at a time. I am saying that you are reading your 1,000 foot assumption into the small steps that we can all see.

No not really. In order to demonstrate the kind of evolution we are talking about, eventually an animal somewhere would have to produce an animal that was not the same kind of animal as it's ancestors were. I understand the concept of one step at a time but at some point you would expect to really start to see a divergence, right? I know you say evolution doesn't work that way, but sooner or later a divergent family line of mosquito has got to get far enough to be a non-mosquito organism. Why is it that it just so happens that nothing like this, observable by us, has ever happened in our time (meaning oh say the last 10,000 years). Why is it that you guys continue to assert that animals change over time into different animals and then when you are asked to show us when and where you fall back on "that's not how evolution works"? Again, I get the paqrt about slow change and small steps, but doesn't it seem odd that we haven't ever seen it when some animal gets to the point where the "new animal" happens. Seems a little suspicious to me that all we get is conjecture about what may have happened 97,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years ago but we don't really get to see the big moment today. And don't tell me that there is no "big moment" in the evolutionary process because if there weren't we would all still be variations of the same original species, or cell, or whatever was here first. I am not sying that my line of thought disproves evolution, I am simply trying to point out that what I see is a whole lot of people's assumptions being read back into what they observe. Your example of the flying squirrel, or the leaping insects is a pretty good case study of that I think. Any ways, nice chatting with you again Bill. This is the funnest (I know that's not a word) rivalry I have ever been half of. Peace.

Answer 2

Every species has parameters that cannot be exceeded. you can breed dogs to become larger, to a point. You cannot breed a dog to be 25 feet long.

It's the same with plants. The corn that we grow today is a lot different from the corn that the Indians grew 400 years ago. But there are limits on how large, or how small a variation can be within a species.

This is not my theory. It has been known for hundreds of years. It is science. It really disproves evolution. One species cannot become another. There are limits on variation.

There is no such thing as micro evolution. What is being called micro evolution is actually just survival of the fittest among the variations within a species.

ءراقيسكْس

Answer 3

Creationists can't deny the obvious micro-level evolution that can be witnessed in the here and now. However, the macro-level stuff goes in the face of their dogma, so it's impossible for them to believe it. It's the god of the gaps.

The creationists who claim macro-e is impossible today are the same ones who claimed that all evolution--micro or macro--was impossible mere decades ago. It's classic "moving of the goal posts".

Science is OK to cover things that are immediate and irrefutable, but god trumps all when it comes to everything else.

Answer 4

Good analogy, skeptic, but you are talking to the deaf and " dumb ", basically. We could use some of that analogous thinking in biology; there are many students that need guidance there.

PS Scientist do not prove things, Thomas, but are convinced by the evidence, not sly verbosity.

You do not read very well through your own presuppositions, Thomas, as plants polyploidy is exactly what you are looking for in evidence; too ignorant to see it, I assume. And your errors in logic are true howlers.

Answer 5

The scientific theory of evolution explains the facts of macro and micro evolution. To my understanding, nothing has cause the theory to change.

There are other scientific theories that discuss change, for example, natural selection.

Science is about facts not about speculations.

Answer 6

Yes, micro-evolution would be necessary for Macro-evolution, but we have not actually observed Macro-evolution, however, we have observed Micro-evolution. Micro-evolution does not require Macro-evolution, however Macro-evolution does require Micro-evolution.

Well that did not answer your question, its just a load of junk, well if macro-evolution is true (I will assume it is for this post)
it would like you stated occur after a bunch of micro-evolution steps,however, a bunch or micro-evolution steps can occur and the organism would still be the same organism just with a variety of small changes.

Answer 7

the concern with the "concept of evolution" is this, it truly is a "concept." which skill it has on no account been scientificily shown to the community the place they might now call it "fact." the clarification evolution is easily no longer fact is it is is fake technological information. real technological information nicely-knownshows "clever layout." it truly is the reason between the premiere Darwinists pronounced this: “Biologists might desire to constantly remember that what they see replaced into no longer designed, yet extremely greater.” One then has to ask Mr. Crick, why might desire to biologist "constantly" save it in strategies? nicely simply by fact each and every thing they look at decrease than efficient microscopes nicely-knownshows extra advantageous than Darwin ever had a gamble to be sure, and because each and every thing those biologist look at looks to have been intelligently designed, yet they might desire to undergo in strategies, it replaced into no longer??????? what form of illogical thinking is that? If i got here across an eye fixed fastened in the woods, i know it did no longer evolve, yet that somebody intelligently designed it. comparable with microscopic existence and how all of it works. Machines, force shafts, u-joints, production tactics, DNA codes, etc. the checklist is going on and on and on approximately what real biologist searching for fact discover. And Charles Darwin states this himself: “If it might desire to be common that any complicated organ existed that would desire to no longer probable have been shaped by skill of distinctive,successive, easy ameliorations, my concept might easily smash down.” nicely there is plenty technological information, no longer hypothesis or concept, that Mr. Darwin's concept has already "easily" broken down, yet human beings dangle to it, and those may be athiests who dangle to lies so as that they do no longer might desire to look upon the face of a Holy God, an clever God, a author God. Why do you think of the U. S. assertion of Independence states, "All adult men are CREATED equivalent..." It does not say "All adult men are greater the two." Our Founding Fathers have been additionally Godly adult men who strongly believed in Jesus Christ.

Answer 8

i dont know
im pretty convinced of this natural selection theory