A question for Creationists who accept "micro-evolution" but not "macro-evolution"?
OK, I have a question for you guys. There is claim among Creationists that evolution in a single genus (or "type" as you put it) has been observed, and is possible, but that evolution into another genus is not, since it has not been observed in a laboratory.
(In other words, "Why haven't cats evolved into dogs?")
However, any evolutionary scientist on earth will tell you that any such evolution would take many millions of years. So it seems you are asking us to perform an impossible experiment, then when we can't, claiming we are wrong. Kinda like claiming the Sun is really cold because no one has stuck a thermometer into it.
So let me ask you guys one question: Assume that evolution between "types", or "macro-evolution" is possible, and assume it does indeed take millions of years. How would you expect us to reproduce this in a laboratory?
- Anonymous10 years agoBest Answer
And Consider this
Creation in the 21st Century “Caught in the Act”
Creation In The 21st Century -- From Where did these Layers ...
Creation in the 21st Century - Overwhelming Evidence 1 of 3
Creation in the 21st Century - Overwhelming Evidence 2 of 3
Evolution: Against All Odds!
Creation In The 21st Century - Palace of Dinosaurs Part 2 (1 of 3)
- CrocoduckLv 710 years ago
That's exactly the point. There is no way to reproduce this experiment in a laboratory. Bacteria do evolve into new species. Of course, they just claim this is microevolution as well. Observable evolution of entirely new species isn't even limited to just bacteria. An entirely new species of mosquito has already evolved in London's subway system (1) It cannot even interbreed with any pre-existing species of mosquito.
What the creationists want is a mammal that evolves into an entirely new species and can be demonstrated doing this in a laboratory. It only happens in the time frame of scientific observation with mosquitos and bacteria. Mammals take too long to reproduce.
Of course, these claims don't really have anything to do with scientific argument. Creationism is a flat Earth theory as far as scientists are concerned. The target audience for these claims is the general public with limited knowledge about the subject, not the scientific community.Source(s): 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Underground_mo...
- GodotIsWaiting4ULv 410 years ago
I'd just like to add to your information, as a pro-science person myself.
Macro-evolution pretty much has been observed. Micro- and macro-evolution work by the exact same process, with the difference being the amount of time you allow for them to work. It's basically the same principle as "I can walk from here to the kitchen in a short time, so in a long time I could walk from here to northeastern Canada". Creationists are essentially telling you that you can't walk to Canada, even though you can walk to the kitchen.
- Tim CLv 410 years ago
You're starting too far back into creationist delusion. Things don't evolve into a different genus. Crocodiles don't evolve into ducks and showing that they did would disprove evolution. The tree branches out, new genii are formed (although they are an arbitrary distinction anyway).
A crocodile will only have crocodiles as its descendants, ever. However if a group of crocodiles is geologically isolated from other crocodiles, their descendants may diverge enough away from the descendants of the other crocodiles so as to result in two distinct types of crocodile, but they are still both crocodiles just as we are still primates.
As a more direct answer to the question, there's an incredible study by Boraas and Seale showing unicellular algae evolving into multicellular algae in less than 20 generations of predatory selective pressure, finding a stable equilibrium around 200 generations.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- SlickLv 410 years ago
Scientists are supposedly professionals that deal with the observable and logical analysis of available facts from observations, not promoting concepts impossible to satisfy by observation. For now let's give a big pass not requiring repeating some supposed observation in the field or lab, like making a fossil jellyfish with every detail preserved. Since there are plenty of those already provided in nature, defyng science, I'll pause that idea too. If I required that you would spend trillions and not succeed. There are other big factors necessary to sustain a theory, not to even speak of a law, that are still missing in evolution, still technically an hypothesis.
How many charts would you suppose are in museums and texbooks showing "missing link" fossils that have not actually been found as drawn? Who has the proof in actual fossil evidence linking a bear and a whale? I submit that most of the "proofs" or "evidences" of evolution exist in imaginations and artistry. Macro-evolution is in fact a bite of science any honest person should choke on, being almost all plastic, like fake margarine.
"Micro-evolution" is not related to macro-evolution except in the midst of uninformed debate. "Macroevolution is decoupled from microevolution" (Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process). Each species DNA enables a wide range of alterations of physical features that temporarily enable an animal within a particular Family to adapt to environmental changes that would otherwise doom the animal that is never seen able to cross Family thresholds. "Micro" in this case indicates a reversible event in nature that produces "in the lab" what has for a long time been considered production of "hybrids". Over-hybridization usually results in "infertility", inability to reproduce at all due to the need for an artificial combining of genes. Of more importance is production of "Varieties" within a species sub-group that are fertile, continuing the sub group variety of a species.
Saying microevolution mixed with millions of years results in production of macro-evolved families is not proved sustainable biology. It is still just a matter of following the Darwinian model. The notion that "millions" of years has been a proved factor is also subject to serious debate, no dating method so far proved to be trustworthy.
So, my answer is, from a very limited stated base that I could not at all expect an evolutionist to reproduce any unobserved phenomena based on a model with no chain of indisputable evidences macroevolution even exists. But, true science demands you demonstrate this concept in a lab. I think most creationists would be satisfied with any actual fossil record tracking unbroken macroevolution at all, in any species or certainly even any FAMILY, without aid of any artist's conceptions or ridiculous redefinitions of biology terms. HOW many times have evolutionists had to change the definition of variety, species, family and genus to carry on the Hail Mary passes around creationists that have yet to score in the halls of science?
- Upasakha JasonLv 710 years ago
It depends on the reproductive cycle of what you're studying. Typically for mammals, it takes too long to reproduce, so evolution takes too long to observe. However, speciation has been observed in things like flies, bacteria, and even a species of wall lizard. Faster reproductive cycles make for easier observations.
However, creationists are starting with a false premise: that evolution predicts that one living genus should give rise to a contemporary genus--largely on demand, to hear some of the claims of creationists. Further, they don't really define what a "kind" is.
EDIT--For Jay Z: I assume you know that that Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to closed systems? Further, I assume you know that iving things metabolize, which means that they obtain energy from the surrounding environment? Further, assume you know that makes living things open systems, not closed systems, meaning that the Second Law of Thermodynamics doesn't apply here?
Furthermore, when you talk about the laws of thermodynamics, entropy does not refer to information loss. Entropy as information loss is a usage peculiar to IT. In Thermodynamics, entropy refers to the energy that is not available for work. In statistical mechanics, it refers to the degree of randomness of a thermodynamic system.
It seems to me that you are ambiguating on the meaning of entropy in your cut-and-paste. Please clarify your definition of entropy: are you using it in the IT sense? If so, then you are clouding the issue by referring to thermodynamics. If you are using entropy in the thermodynamic/statistical mechanical sense, then you are misleading your reader by invoking IT.
- bryanLv 610 years ago
Use bacteria, o wait macro evolution has been observed in bacteria in a laboratory over the course of 20 years. How do they explain that?
- CoreyLv 710 years ago
I'm not a creationist, so you're not really looking for this answer.
But creationists are careful not to equate genera to "types" or "kinds", in order to avoid that exact problem. By not explaining what a type is, they are free to move the goalpost. For organisms with an incredibly fast generation cycle, it could be possible to see new genera emerge in a lab. But then they'd just say it's the same type.
- Jay ZLv 610 years ago
I don't expect you to reproduce it in a laboratory.
The theory has no evidence to support it.
Using the terms micro/ macro-evolution only confuses the issue. Any change observed in recent history, or in fossil evidence, point to a loss of information, not an increase, as the second law of thermodynamics would suggest.
- pluto monroeLv 610 years ago
Not necessarily, virus' are very good examples of evolution here and now that does not require millions of years. Every time a virus mutates, it is another new organism. Genetic mutations that are hereditary are new evolved organisms.