Dr Collins, top geneticist, and CHRISTIAN....

[WorldWatcher]

Because micro evolution is changes within a group ,family,or kind. We believe in diversity within a group and that is observable .

Then feel free to identify the genetic mechanism that prevents the accumulation of multiple incremental changes over time resulting in a new species differentiated from it's ancestors.


If these small changes have some barrier, what is it?


>>>>

Gene depeltion and the aid of natural selection.

Gene deletion is not a barrier to the accumulation of additional genetic information in incremental steps over hundreds of thousands of generations.

Fail.


>>>>

 

[Youwerecreated]

Then feel free to identify the genetic mechanism that prevents the accumulation of multiple incremental changes over time resulting in a new species differentiated from it's ancestors.


If these small changes have some barrier, what is it?


>>>>

Gene depeltion and the aid of natural selection.

Gene deletion is not a barrier to the accumulation of additional genetic information in incremental steps over hundreds of thousands of generations.

Fail.


>>>>

The only way for new information to affect the off spring is sexual reproduction. Gene depletion occurs because during breeding information is bred out not new information in. So by gene depletion results in the gene pool getting smaller and smaller to the point that there is only information left to reproduce what the parents are. Please forgive typos I am outside on my smart phone can't see what I'm writing very well when my computer gets up and running I will show that the gene pool gets smaller it does not accumulate more information.

 

[cbirch2]

Well you stepped in it again youngster. Google macro and micro evolution talk origins I believe that is one of the favorite sites for your side.

Lol so why dont you actually read that wiki. It provides great examples as to how mutations spread throughout populations, since you didnt believe that. You should really pay attention to the "selection", "gene flow", and genetic drift" parts.

Are you novo.g the goalposts Jr, you said neither term exists they were made up by creationist . Now did you do as I said and see who and why the terms were created. It was to explain the observed and the things never observed. You truly are disingenuous .

The point is nearly every biologist uses the terms adaption, diversification, natural selection, genetic drift, etc, etc to refer to "microevolution". When an actual biologists, or intelligent person, uses the term evolution they are referring to the actual theory of evolution. The Theory of Evolution includes speciation. If the word evolution does not refer to Charles Dawins Theory of Evolution your creating your own meaning for it. Thats what ive been saying the entire time.

 

[cbirch2]

Gene depeltion and the aid of natural selection.

Gene deletion is not a barrier to the accumulation of additional genetic information in incremental steps over hundreds of thousands of generations.

Fail.


>>>>

The only way for new information to affect the off spring is sexual reproduction. Gene depletion occurs because during breeding information is bred out not new information in. So by gene depletion results in the gene pool getting smaller and smaller to the point that there is only information left to reproduce what the parents are. Please forgive typos I am outside on my smart phone can't see what I'm writing very well when my computer gets up and running I will show that the gene pool gets smaller it does not accumulate more information.

You seriously have no idea how sexual reproduction works. Any one offspring receives traits (and therefore genes and information) randomly from its parents. The egg and the sperm used to produce the offspring only contain half the genetic blueprint of the parent organism. So id love to hear where your "information loss theory" comes in right there. Your quoting Dr Spetner but your not even quoting him correctly.

Sexual reproduction has nothing to do with new information. It has to do with variation and diversification, because it makes sure each egg/sperm cell only gets a random half of the organisms DNA like ive been saying the whole time; making the offspring always a random collection of only certain parts of the parents DNA. Sexual reproduction doesnt add any more information than asexual reproduction, except by maybe increasing the chance for some sort of malformed chromosome. Addition of genetic material to an organisms genetic code happens through insertion (Insertion (genetics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) of everything from single nucleotides, to whole genes, to entire chromosomes. Gene flow allows the flow of genes between species, meaning mutations can spread throughout entire ecosystems rather than just specific species.

 

[cbirch2]

Well you stepped in it again youngster. Google macro and micro evolution talk origins I believe that is one of the favorite sites for your side.

Lol so why dont you actually read that wiki. It provides great examples as to how mutations spread throughout populations, since you didnt believe that. You should really pay attention to the "selection", "gene flow", and genetic drift" parts.

When are you gonna respond to the flies that were introduced to radiation ?

What?

 

[geauxtohell]

Which is why top genetecists and mathematicians remain Christian.

Top geneticists and mathematicians don't use "Christianity" to refute evolution.

 

[geauxtohell]

Well I have seen no evidence that convinces me. The latest and supposedly greatest theory is neo darwinism. Sorry but that theory is not possible. Mutations can't do what evolutionist need for macro evolution to occur. See Dr. Spetners arguments against neo darwinism that I posted.

This issue doesn't hang on convincing you as far as the rest of the world is concerned. You can believe what you want, but you aren't offering any coherent objection that anyone that understands the issue is going to pay attention too.

I have no idea what "Neo Darwinism" is. Do you mean the "modern synthesis"?

 

[geauxtohell]

Never understood the logic of "micro" evolution happens but "macro" evolution is impossible.

That's like saying I can walk to the corner store but I can't walk from Virginia to California. The process is the same, just the number of steps that is greater.



>>>>

Because micro evolution is changes within a group ,family,or kind. We believe in diversity within a group and that is observable .

Then feel free to identify the genetic mechanism that prevents the accumulation of multiple incremental changes over time resulting in a new species differentiated from it's ancestors.


If these small changes have some barrier, what is it?


>>>>

Exactly.

 

[cbirch2]

Because micro evolution is changes within a group ,family,or kind. We believe in diversity within a group and that is observable .

Then feel free to identify the genetic mechanism that prevents the accumulation of multiple incremental changes over time resulting in a new species differentiated from it's ancestors.


If these small changes have some barrier, what is it?


>>>>

Exactly.

Lol its a simple concept isnt it? If two groups of the same type of animal get separated theyre going to diversify in totally different ways. I guess if you think the earth is 6000 years old there isnt enough time for speciation...

 

[geauxtohell]

I'm very much a layman, and I've often found the micro- and macro-evolution argument seems pretty weak, when you look at it in any depth. I understand that it's easy to believe (or directly see in some cases) 'micro-evolution'. At the same time, you cannot directly see 'macro-evolution'. It's the whole a cat won't give birth to a dog theme. The problem lies in taking into account number of changes and time, as I understand it. The idea of evolution bringing rise to new species is not a matter of an animal giving birth to a creature of a completely separate species. Instead, you have some kind of change within a species. Then that changed animal undergoes another change. Then that changed animal undergoes another change. Do that again, and again, perhaps hundreds or thousands of times over millions of years. It seems reasonable to think that eventually enough accumulated changes can lead to an entirely different species.

On the other side of the coin, there's the question of where the line is drawn. Assuming the theory is correct and that many small changes over time lead to a new species, wouldn't that still leave a point at which one animal, still classified as part of the original (for the sake of my earlier description) species, gives rise to an animal that is no longer classified as part of that species? At some points in the evolutionary chain you must have animals giving birth to other species. It doesn't require the leap that those who don't believe in evolution (or macro-evolution) often present, but it's certainly a necessity.

Anyway, to the original point, if you believe that evolution occurs within a species, and you believe that life has existed on the planet for many millions of years, it doesn't seem to make sense to think that macro-evolution isn't possible. As WorldWatcher has asked, what prevents that accumulation of changes from eventually leading to a new species?

You hinted on another reason the "micro/macro" issue is so idiotic. We (human beings) created the concept of species. Even among that, there is debate on what really defines a species. Most people are comfortable with the notion of inability to procreate, but not all people are.

In light of that, we could get really anal and make a new species based simply on color patterns.

The people that actually study this aren't really concerned with the "A ha!" moment where speciation occurs. Considering the odds of making a fossil are roughly equivalent to winning the powerball, it's doubtful that the fossil record will ever be that complete (and even if it was, how could you delineate if on fossil could breed with another?). It's just abundantly obvious based off the fossil record.

So, again, it really is just a lame semantics argument made by people who aren't interested in discussing the issue in an honest matter anyways.

 

[geauxtohell]

Well you stepped in it again youngster. Google macro and micro evolution talk origins I believe that is one of the favorite sites for your side.

Lol so why dont you actually read that wiki. It provides great examples as to how mutations spread throughout populations, since you didnt believe that. You should really pay attention to the "selection", "gene flow", and genetic drift" parts.

When are you gonna respond to the flies that were introduced to radiation ?

You realize that radiation tends to be detrimental to the genome by causing thymine dimers and that there are a multitude of other ways to have mutations to include the most obvious: innate error of transcription and translation.

 

[geauxtohell]

Gene depeltion and the aid of natural selection.

Gene deletion is not a barrier to the accumulation of additional genetic information in incremental steps over hundreds of thousands of generations.

Fail.


>>>>

The only way for new information to affect the off spring is sexual reproduction. Gene depletion occurs because during breeding information is bred out not new information in. So by gene depletion results in the gene pool getting smaller and smaller to the point that there is only information left to reproduce what the parents are. Please forgive typos I am outside on my smart phone can't see what I'm writing very well when my computer gets up and running I will show that the gene pool gets smaller it does not accumulate more information.

That is completely absurd. During reproduction, a unique diploid genome is created by matching up two haploid cells. How could you say that doesn't create new information? Furthermore, any novel mutations in those haploid cells are passed on in addition to the genetic material from the parents.

 

[cbirch2]

You hinted on another reason the "micro/macro" issue is so idiotic. We (human beings) created the concept of species. Even among that, there is debate on what really defines a species. Most people are comfortable with the notion of inability to procreate, but not all people are.

In light of that, we could get really anal and make a new species based simply on color patterns.

The people that actually study this aren't really concerned with the "A ha!" moment where speciation occurs. Considering the odds of making a fossil are roughly equivalent to winning the powerball, it's doubtful that the fossil record will ever be that complete (and even if it was, how could you delineate if on fossil could breed with another?). It's just abundantly obvious based off the fossil record.

So, again, it really is just a lame semantics argument made by people who aren't interested in discussing the issue in an honest matter anyways.

Exactly what ive been trying to tell allie the whole time. There is no clear rule for what makes a new species. Even the distinction between being able to procreate doesnt mean much. Separate species cannot procreate, and we base our definition of species on that. That doesnt mean in 20,000 years a domestic dog will be able to mate with a wild wolf. Or that 20,000 years ago two subspecies of bird hadnt diversified enough to not be able to mate.

But theyve already proved they dont know how sexual reproduction works so this argument is pointless.

 

[geauxtohell]

Then feel free to identify the genetic mechanism that prevents the accumulation of multiple incremental changes over time resulting in a new species differentiated from it's ancestors.


If these small changes have some barrier, what is it?


>>>>

Exactly.

Lol its a simple concept isnt it? If two groups of the same type of animal get separated theyre going to diversify in totally different ways. I guess if you think the earth is 6000 years old there isnt enough time for speciation...

It's a dodge to admit the readily apparent: "We can observe minute differences in single species on Earth at this time" while not having to subscribe to the entire theory.

 

[cbirch2]

Gene deletion is not a barrier to the accumulation of additional genetic information in incremental steps over hundreds of thousands of generations.

Fail.


>>>>

The only way for new information to affect the off spring is sexual reproduction. Gene depletion occurs because during breeding information is bred out not new information in. So by gene depletion results in the gene pool getting smaller and smaller to the point that there is only information left to reproduce what the parents are. Please forgive typos I am outside on my smart phone can't see what I'm writing very well when my computer gets up and running I will show that the gene pool gets smaller it does not accumulate more information.

That is completely absurd. During reproduction, a unique diploid genome is created by matching up two haploid cells. How could you say that doesn't create new information? Furthermore, any novel mutations in those haploid cells are passed on in addition to the genetic material from the parents.

Tried this argument too. He doesnt get that sperm and egg cells dont contain the entire genetic blueprint of the organism they come from. Hes gonna think your trying to confuse him by using terms like haploid and diploid. All you can really do is sit back in amazement of someone that really doesnt understand how things work at a basic level.

 

[geauxtohell]

The only way for new information to affect the off spring is sexual reproduction. Gene depletion occurs because during breeding information is bred out not new information in. So by gene depletion results in the gene pool getting smaller and smaller to the point that there is only information left to reproduce what the parents are. Please forgive typos I am outside on my smart phone can't see what I'm writing very well when my computer gets up and running I will show that the gene pool gets smaller it does not accumulate more information.

That is completely absurd. During reproduction, a unique diploid genome is created by matching up two haploid cells. How could you say that doesn't create new information? Furthermore, any novel mutations in those haploid cells are passed on in addition to the genetic material from the parents.

Tried this argument too. He doesnt get that sperm and egg cells dont contain the entire genetic blueprint of the organism they come from. Hes gonna think your trying to confuse him by using terms like haploid and diploid. All you can really do is sit back in amazement of someone that really doesnt understand how things work at a basic level.

The fact that offspring are not clones of parents should be sufficient to show him how silly his logic is.

Furthermore, look at the "founder's effect" and why certain Jewish Communities have a large percentage of Tay-Sachs (much larger then the general population). Tay-Sachs, though detrimental is preserved in the gene pool. The same with Sickle Cell Disease.

After a while it gets silly. I am far beyond trying to convince people, but they could at least make coherent arguments.

 

[cbirch2]

That is completely absurd. During reproduction, a unique diploid genome is created by matching up two haploid cells. How could you say that doesn't create new information? Furthermore, any novel mutations in those haploid cells are passed on in addition to the genetic material from the parents.

Tried this argument too. He doesnt get that sperm and egg cells dont contain the entire genetic blueprint of the organism they come from. Hes gonna think your trying to confuse him by using terms like haploid and diploid. All you can really do is sit back in amazement of someone that really doesnt understand how things work at a basic level.

The fact that offspring are not clones of parents should be sufficient to show him how silly his logic is.

Furthermore, look at the "founder's effect" and why certain Jewish Communities have a large percentage of Tay-Sachs (much larger then the general population). Tay-Sachs, though detrimental is preserved in the gene pool. The same with Sickle Cell Disease.

After a while it gets silly. I am far beyond trying to convince people, but they could at least make coherent arguments.

Yup. I keep getting accused of being incoherent because they cant understand what im saying. He just keeps repeating that information has to be "bred out" of an organism, which makes no sense and doesnt happen. Its delusional

 

[geauxtohell]

Tried this argument too. He doesnt get that sperm and egg cells dont contain the entire genetic blueprint of the organism they come from. Hes gonna think your trying to confuse him by using terms like haploid and diploid. All you can really do is sit back in amazement of someone that really doesnt understand how things work at a basic level.

The fact that offspring are not clones of parents should be sufficient to show him how silly his logic is.

Furthermore, look at the "founder's effect" and why certain Jewish Communities have a large percentage of Tay-Sachs (much larger then the general population). Tay-Sachs, though detrimental is preserved in the gene pool. The same with Sickle Cell Disease.

After a while it gets silly. I am far beyond trying to convince people, but they could at least make coherent arguments.

Yup. I keep getting accused of being incoherent because they cant understand what im saying. He just keeps repeating that information has to be "bred out" of an organism, which makes no sense and doesnt happen. Its delusional

Goodness! Our chromosomes are shortening!

 

[cbirch2]

The fact that offspring are not clones of parents should be sufficient to show him how silly his logic is.

Furthermore, look at the "founder's effect" and why certain Jewish Communities have a large percentage of Tay-Sachs (much larger then the general population). Tay-Sachs, though detrimental is preserved in the gene pool. The same with Sickle Cell Disease.

After a while it gets silly. I am far beyond trying to convince people, but they could at least make coherent arguments.

Yup. I keep getting accused of being incoherent because they cant understand what im saying. He just keeps repeating that information has to be "bred out" of an organism, which makes no sense and doesnt happen. Its delusional

Goodness! Our chromosomes are shortening!

Oh no im getting downs!! NOoooooasdofasdfagg

 

[Youwerecreated]

Well I have seen no evidence that convinces me. The latest and supposedly greatest theory is neo darwinism. Sorry but that theory is not possible. Mutations can't do what evolutionist need for macro evolution to occur. See Dr. Spetners arguments against neo darwinism that I posted.

This issue doesn't hang on convincing you as far as the rest of the world is concerned. You can believe what you want, but you aren't offering any coherent objection that anyone that understands the issue is going to pay attention too.

I have no idea what "Neo Darwinism" is. Do you mean the "modern synthesis"?

It is the preferred theory of macro evolution ,with the engine being natural selection and mutations. But as I see from stats that a lot are jumping to or extrapolating from punctuated equilibrium.