Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Science & MathematicsBiology · 1 decade ago

Micro-evolution vs Macro-vision...again?

Natural selection is a logical process that anyone can observe (and it was actually a creationist named Edward Blyth who first wrote about it in 1835–37, before Darwin). We can look at the great variation in an animal kind and see the results of natural selection. For instance, wolves, coyotes, and dingoes have developed over time as a result of natural selection operating on the information in the genes of the dog kind.

But there are limits. For instance, you can’t breed a dog to the size of an elephant, much less turn it into an elephant. As Dr. Ray Bohlin said, “For essentially every trait, although it usually harbors some variability, there has always been a limit. Whether the organisms or selected traits are roses, dogs, pigeons, horses, cattle, protein content in corn, or the sugar content in beets, selection certainly has an effect. But all selected qualities eventually fizzle out. Chickens don't produce cylindrical eggs. We can't produce a plum the size of a pea or a grapefruit. There are limits to how far we can go.”

And the thing is, what are they? Dogs. What were they? Dogs. What will they be? Dogs. The same could be said for Darwin’s finches, peppered moths, and so forth. There is a big difference between subspeciation (variation within a kind) and transspeciation (change from one kind to another). And yes, there are a lot of semantics that go on with what is considered a new “species” or what is a “kind.” I’ll leave that to the experts to wrangle about. The thing is, they have great variability and adaptability, but they are still dogs and bacteria, etc.

As Dr. Carl Wieland said, “Bacteria actually provide evidence against evolution. Bacterial populations multiply at incredibly high rates. In only a matter of a few years, bacteria can go through a massive number of generations, equivalent to millions of years in human terms. Therefore, since we see mutation and natural selection in bacterial populations happening all the time, we should see tremendous amounts of real evolution happening. However, the bacteria we have with us today are essentially the same as those described by Robert Koch a century ago. In fact, there are bacteria found fossilized in rock layers, claimed by evolutionists to be millions of years old, which as far as one can tell are the same as bacteria living today.”

And as Dr. David Berlinski said about this (when being interviewed for Icons of Evolution), “When we look at dogs, no matter how far back we go, it’s dog. When we look at bacteria, no matter what we do, they stay bugs. They don’t change in their fundamental nature. There seems to be some sort of an inherent species limitation and we have no good explanation for this in terms of Darwinian theory. We should have far more flexibility, far more plasticity under laboratory conditions than we actually do if Darwinian theory or anything like that were correct.”

There certainly seems to be a permanence of kinds. As zoologist Dr. Walter Veith has said of the fruit fly that’s been bred and mutated and bombarded with more evolutionary processes than anything else, and we’ve produced all these different varieties and characteristics and deformities: “But, it’s always fruit flies. How many tunes can I play on a piano? Unlimited tunes, but it’s always piano music. How many tunes can I play on the violin? Unlimited number of tunes, but it’s always violin music.”

Update:

Oh, just so you know this is for Micro-Evolution fact, Macro-Evolution theory...

6 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago

    "We should have far more flexibility, far more plasticity under laboratory conditions than we actually do if Darwinian theory or anything like that were correct.”

    Absolutely not! that's the whole point in evolution, favourable variation is selected and preserved and unfavourable variation is rejected. You bang on about Dogs and wolfs and so on, but what about Foxes or the Raccoon dog, other members of the Canidae family.

    Or Bacteria, maybe the problem is that most bacteria we know are the ones we study, either those that are harmful to humans, are useful in chemistry or do well in labs. The reality is that there are probably billions of species of bacteria out there that have never been described by science.

    "Measuring the bacterial biodiversity of soil is difficult because only a few species can be cultured in the lab, according to Jason Gans of Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico, US"

    You see if you actually studied the science and the truth you wouldn't spend so much time on the wing nut websites. The BS about there being a limit to change is just that, but every science will tell you the limit is available variation and unless we manipulate genes we can't make variation arise, that takes nature and time. If we do manipulate genes though you'll just claim that's what the creator does, offering zero real evidence as usual.

  • Alane
    Lv 4
    4 years ago

    You get the coveted gold star, I find it to be specious at best to attempt to set a size barrier at what 10E-10 or whatever size microbes are and saying that evolution is OK for them but not people. And I've noticed that dogs, chickens, horses and cows, (I'm keeping this line of thinking brief) seem to have evolved in the last few decades. I guess the creationists missed what was right in front of their eyes.

  • 3 years ago

    1

    Source(s): Secrets To Improve Vision - http://ImproveEyesight.uzaev.com/?GCQj
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    I'm sorry, what's your question?

    Also - "music played by a piano will always be piano music" - uh, no sh*t Sherlock.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 4 years ago

    microevolution macrovision

  • Amelia
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago

    do you have a question?

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.