How can you say micro and macro evolution are fundamentally the same???
You are trying to bluff your way through this. You don’t have a lick of science.
No, seriously though, how can you say micro and macro evolution are the same!!!
Wow.
I mean. Wow. You really have no clue and l swear l don’t mean that as an insult. You are clueless. You don’t have a lick of science. Damn.
You misundestand the very core of this debate. Worse, you pretend you understand. You lie.
Bye, man.
Some creationists will say that they accept microevolution—for instance, the way one strain of virus can mutate into another, a mutation for which our body’s antibodies find no match. It would be hard to deny that, since it happens every year at flu season. But then they’ll turn around and insist that we have nothing in common with the other creatures here on Earth, because God must have made humans different. They use the term microevolution for the part of evolution that they find theologically acceptable. They use macroevolution for the part they don’t like, because it’s too disturbing. For them, macroevolution can’t be real, because it cannot be reconciled with their belief in special creation. You have gone further and deny evolution on any scale. And yet you provide no alternative explanation. At this point I can only speculate why. You claim your rejection of the prevailing biological theory is based on scientifically informed critical reasoning. At this point, I’m not persuaded of that. Is anybody besides you?
What in the holy fucking hell is going on here
You don’t understand random gene mutation plus natural selection pressure over long periods of time?
I gotta say, your ‘science’ degree might not be worth much.
BTW that was targeted at plebius, not you. Not sure how the quotes got tangled or such.
Got it, I was definitely confused for a moment.
Here’s how I see it:
OP wants to declare an entire field of science wrong, without providing a shred of evidence. However if anyone disagrees with him, they have to provide all the evidence. He’s apparently entirely unaware of the mountains of evidence that exist that were used to generate the scientific consensus of evolution in the first place.
So, in his ignorance of the existing evidence, he gets to declare that he wins. As long as he remains ignorant of the existing mountains of evidence, or just decides not to accept it, he wins. Those are the rules for this game apparently.
And he’s very upset that nobody is buying it. Very emotional about it.
1 Like
Just for the record, I don’t wish to shut this conversation down at all, and I have done nothing to end this thread or this conversation. OP is paranoid, he sees that I’m a moderator and concludes that if I’m disagreeing with him, that means I’m interested in shutting the conversation down. That’s an incorrect logical leap. I’m allowed to disagree and still maintain your freedom to have whatever conversations you think are philosophically or scientifically relevant.
I’m not using moderator powers to shut anything down.
Whenever I come back, it’s like I’m observing a stain, a bacterial colony, growing. I’ll attempt a clean up.
Which ignores the actual OP:
Peace 
When, after I had posted scientific molecular biology articles claiming evidence of microevolution, I asked Plebius for scientific research supporting his theory, he admitted that he couldn’t, giving the excuse that he couldn’t get funding. Then he claimed that he had proven his theory using the peer reviewed research papers that I had posted.
It seems that Plebius wishes to turn back the clock on modern medicine which is based on evolutionary theory.
Here is the thesis Plebius must disprove to make his case:
chrome://external-file/Dobzhansky.pdf
The essay is entitled “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution.” Bill Nye says the essay is generally credited with starting the discussion or intellectual dialog often called the “new synthesis” of evolution. “ Dobzhansky incorporated the biochemical details and role of the technical description of a gene: the specific sequence of nucleotides (aka, the genetic code) that comprise a portion of a chromosome. Described this way, a gene is a construction plan that ultimately determines the order of amino acids needed to create a specific protein.
… this molecular point of view is absolutely, completely, in every way consistent with the observations and conclusions that Darwin made: DNA directs the construction of strings of chemicals; those chemicals influence the configuration of the whole organism; that configuration influences how likely it is that the organism will reproduce and keep spreading more copies of the code.”
By the way, Plebius, there are plenty of creationists like Ken Ham or The Creation Science Institute who will back your research if they think it has merit. Ham had enough money to build a theme park in Kentucky with a huge replica of Noah’s Ark which he claims to be to the scale described in Genesis.
Sorry, l see no arguments supporting evolution by gene mutation. I’ve batted research article after research article, argument after argument out of the court. They were all feeble too.
For any future “evidence” or “proof” you might pull off Google:
Peace!
- Dobzhansky, Th. (1973). “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution” (PDF). The American Biology Teacher. 35 (3): 125–129. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.324.2891. doi:10.2307/4444260. JSTOR 4444260. S2CID 207358177.
Once again Plebius shows us that he’s playing a game called “I win”. He gets to declare victory, regardless of if he’s actually managed to demonstrate anything to anybody else.
1 Like
The unifying principle of common descent that emerges from all the foregoing lines of evidence (see full article hypertexted at Go below) is being reinforced by the discoveries of modern biochemistry and molecular biology.
The code used to translate nucleotide sequences into amino acid sequences is essentially the same in all organisms. Moreover, proteins in all organisms are invariably composed of the same set of 20 amino acids. This unity of composition and function is a powerful argument in favor of the common descent of the most diverse organisms.
In 1959, scientists at Cambridge University in the United Kingdom determined the three-dimensional structures of two proteins that are found in almost every multicelled animal: hemoglobin and myoglobin. Hemoglobin is the protein that carries oxygen in the blood. Myoglobin receives oxygen from hemoglobin and stores it in the tissues until needed. These were the first three-dimensional protein structures to be solved, and they yielded some key insights. Myoglobin has a single chain of 153 amino acids wrapped around a group of iron and other atoms (called “heme”) to which oxygen binds. Hemoglobin, in contrast, is made of up four chains: two identical chains consisting of 141 amino acids, and two other identical chains consisting of 146 amino acids. However, each chain has a heme exactly like that of myoglobin, and each of the four chains in the hemoglobin molecule is folded exactly like myoglobin. It was immediately obvious in 1959 that the two molecules are very closely related.
During the next two decades, myoglobin and hemoglobin sequences were determined for dozens of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, worms, and molluscs. All of these sequences were so obviously related that they could be compared with confidence with the three-dimensional structures of two selected standards—whale myoglobin and horse hemoglobin. Even more significantly, the differences between sequences from different organisms could be used to construct a family tree of hemoglobin and myoglobin variation among organisms. This tree agreed completely with observations derived from paleontology and anatomy about the common descent of the corresponding organisms.
Figure
Myoglobin, which stores oxygen in muscles, consists of a chain of 153 amino acids wrapped around an oxygen-binding molecule. The sequence of amino acids in myoglobin vanes from species to species, revealing the evolutionary relationships among organisms. (more…)
Similar family histories have been obtained from the three-dimensional structures and amino acid sequences of other proteins, such as cytochrome c (a protein engaged in energy transfer) and the digestive proteins trypsin and chymotrypsin. The examination of molecular structure offers a new and extremely powerful tool for studying evolutionary relationships. The quantity of information is potentially huge—as large as the thousands of different proteins contained in living organisms, and limited only by the time and resources of molecular biologists.
As the ability to sequence the nucleotides making up DNA has improved, it also has become possible to use genes to reconstruct the evolutionary history of organisms. Because of mutations, the sequence of nucleotides in a gene gradually changes over time. The more closely related two organisms are, the less different their DNA will be. Because there are tens of thousands of genes in humans and other organisms, DNA contains a tremendous amount of information about the evolutionary history of each organism.
Genes evolve at different rates because, although mutation is a random event, some proteins are much more tolerant of changes in their amino acid sequence than are other proteins. For this reason, the genes that encode these more tolerant, less constrained proteins evolve faster The average rate at which a particular kind of gene or protein evolves gives rise to the concept of a “molecular clock.” Molecular clocks run rapidly for less constrained proteins and slowly for more constrained proteins, though they all time the same evolutionary events.
The figure on this page compares three molecular clocks: for cytochrome c proteins, which interact intimately with other macromolecules and are quite constrained in their amino acid sequences; for the less rigidly constrained hemoglobins, which interact mainly with oxygen and other small molecules; and for fibrinopeptides, which are protein fragments that are cut from larger proteins (fibrinogens) when blood clots. The clock for fibrinopeptides runs rapidly; 1 percent of the amino acids change in a little longer than 1 million years. At the other extreme, the molecular clock runs slowly for cytochrome c; a 1 percent change in amino acid sequence requires 20 million years. The hemoglobin clock is intermediate.
The concept of a molecular clock is useful for two purposes. It determines evolutionary relationships among organisms, and it indicates the time in the past when species started to diverge from one another. Once the clock for a particular gene or protein has been calibrated by reference to some event whose time is known, the actual chronological time when all other events occurred can be determined by examining the protein or gene tree.
Figure
Species that diverged longer ago have more differences in their corresponding proteins, reflecting changes in the amino acids over time. Proteins evolve at different rates depending on the constraints imposed by their functions. Cytochrome c, a protein (more…)
An interesting additional line of evidence supporting evolution involves sequences of DNA known as “pseudogenes.” Pseudogenes are remnants of genes that no longer function but continue to be carried along in DNA as excess baggage. Pseudogenes also change through time, as they are passed on from ancestors to descendants, and they offer an especially useful way of reconstructing evolutionary relationships.
With functioning genes, one possible explanation for the relative similarity between genes from different organisms is that their ways of life are similar—for example, the genes from a horse and a zebra could be more similar because of their similar habitats and behaviors than the genes from a horse and a tiger. But this possible explanation does not work for pseudogenes, since they perform no function. Rather, the degree of similarity between pseudogenes must simply reflect their evolutionary relatedness. The more remote the last common ancestor of two organisms, the more dissimilar their pseudogenes will be.
The evidence for evolution from molecular biology is overwhelming and is growing quickly. In some cases, this molecular evidence makes it possible to go beyond the paleontological evidence. For example, it has long been postulated that whales descended from land mammals that had returned to the sea. From anatomical and paleontological evidence, the whales’ closest living land relatives seemed to be the even-toed hoofed mammals (modem cattle, sheep, camels, goats, etc.).
Recent comparisons of some milk protein genes (beta-casein and kappa-casein) have confirmed this relationship and have suggested that the closest land-bound living relative of whales may be the hippopotamus. In this case, molecular biology has augmented the fossil record.
Actually no. It’s a fundemantal flaw with your POV.
It’s a question that at million children ask every year and Theists are struck dumb.
ANy argument that posits that the complexity of living systems has to point to a creator is all the more difficult to answer when it comes to the complexity of a thing that is claimed to have designed and maintained sush a system. And it there is an insistence on a creation , then that creator too has to have been created.
You can run yourself rund in circles, but you only end up looking into Uranus
The devastatingly wonderful thing about evolution is its shocking simplicity actally.
The fact that without interference, adjust ment, or tinkering it happens all by itself.
- That is on par with saying animals all have red blood whereas had God created them, they would have red, green, yellow, etc. blood. It is non-sequitur that they need to be different. As with arms and legs, the structure of molecules reflect that they fulfil the same basic functions. Arms and legs are function of earth’s gravity. Haemoglobin’s structure is a function of the oxygen atom. Myoglobin is a function of muscle tissue.
- Like all other assumed “Mutations” the variants (e.g. blue eyes, brown eyes) are only assumed to be mutations, that’s what alleles are called i.e.variants of a gene. It is all backstory as is this new article you’ve posted.
- I asked ONLY for EVIDENCE OF IT OCCURRING IN THE LAB. And it can well occur in the lab as one of the articles you postsed (cited in the OP) states, and which l easily dismissed.
- The reason l pointed out l have a degree in life sciences is that you need to realise the basic simplistic rubbish you google, l’ve long been aware of. So you REALLY NEED TO TRY HARDER (you’ll fail anyway, as l know the field thoroughly).
- You should not Google and post things you have no understanding of. That’s another reason l pointed out l have a degree in this general field.
- Finally, in case you missed it, l already rebutted this, in the original conversation we had, AND in the OP, here:
You are bad quality.