16
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 98:
Line 98: + + +
Debate:Is the evidence in favor of evolution convincing? (view source)
Revision as of 02:07, October 13, 2010
, 02:07, October 13, 2010→Many Authoritative Sounding Assertions Does Not Make For A Conclusive Debate
: Do you realise what's missing from your comment? What did the mayflies evolve into? Oh, mayflies! So where's the evolution (as distinct from the variation within a [[baraminology|kind]] that creationists teach? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:21, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
: Do you realise what's missing from your comment? What did the mayflies evolve into? Oh, mayflies! So where's the evolution (as distinct from the variation within a [[baraminology|kind]] that creationists teach? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:21, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
::Yes, Philip, they did evolve into mayflies. They would not become a completely different species upon the first mutation. The way evolution causes new species to rise is that, after thousands of mutations, those mayflies become so genetically different from the mayflies that their ancestors were, they are no longer capable of breeding with that species of mayfly and producing fertile offspring. It is at that point that the "new mayfly" becomes a different species - perhaps a junefly? :) --[[User:JohnLee|JohnLee]] 21:55, 12 October 2010 (EDT)
::Yes, Philip, they did evolve into mayflies. They would not become a completely different species upon the first mutation. The way evolution causes new species to rise is that, after thousands of mutations, those mayflies become so genetically different from the mayflies that their ancestors were, they are no longer capable of breeding with that species of mayfly and producing fertile offspring. It is at that point that the "new mayfly" becomes a different species - perhaps a junefly? :) --[[User:JohnLee|JohnLee]] 21:55, 12 October 2010 (EDT)
::Also, there are several instances of this happening outside of the above speculation. Take, for example, viruses. By the time flue season comes along, the flu vaccine that we used last year no longer works. This is because, in that year, the virus has mutated so many times (microorganisms reproduce much quicker than larger organisms) that it is essentially a different species of virus, and therefore it is immune to the innoculation that was designed for the old virus. After years of this, that virus would be even more different. HIV evolves resistance to drugs so quickly that they are practically useless.
::FOOTNOTES:[http://www.college.ucla.edu/webproject/micro12/m12webnotes/viralevolution.htm Viruses, Vaccines, and evolution of Influenza]
::[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_20.html Evolution and AIDS]--[[User:JohnLee|JohnLee]] 22:07, 12 October 2010 (EDT)
::as far as i can tell there isn't much difference between micro evolution (which there isn't really a argument against anymore) and baraminology (the kind that creations teach), besides the fact that micro evolution leads to macro evolution (which there is a debate over) eventually, which i think is what apocalypse is getting at-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 00:56, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
::as far as i can tell there isn't much difference between micro evolution (which there isn't really a argument against anymore) and baraminology (the kind that creations teach), besides the fact that micro evolution leads to macro evolution (which there is a debate over) eventually, which i think is what apocalypse is getting at-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 00:56, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
::: A problem is lack of a precise definitions of micro- and macro-evolution, but the difference between baraminology and macroevolution is not size of the change (which is what micro- vs. macro- implies), but the ''direction'' of the change. That is, microbe-to-microbiologist evolution requires ''increases'' in genetic information (i.e. the generation of new genetic information), whereas baraminology sticks with what scientists ''observe'', which is ''decreases'' in genetic information. See also [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/431 here]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:32, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
::: A problem is lack of a precise definitions of micro- and macro-evolution, but the difference between baraminology and macroevolution is not size of the change (which is what micro- vs. macro- implies), but the ''direction'' of the change. That is, microbe-to-microbiologist evolution requires ''increases'' in genetic information (i.e. the generation of new genetic information), whereas baraminology sticks with what scientists ''observe'', which is ''decreases'' in genetic information. See also [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/431 here]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:32, 16 May 2008 (EDT)