Difference between revisions of "Talk:Macroevolution"

Revision as of 21:33, April 14, 2007

First Arg

The current version is nothing short of inane. It can't even get the creationist canards correct. For example, the claim is made that no known mechanism adds "genetic material" - this is so false it isn't even funny. Many forms of mutations add genetic material. Examples include polyploidy, single-bit insertions and gene duplications. The claim made is that no mechanism adds "information" or a new "function" Note that even this claim is woefully false. Examples include: Negoro, et al. "The nylon oligomer biodegradation system of Flavobacterium and Pseudomonas" Biodegradation 5: 185-194 which discusses bactera that through a mutation became able to digest nylon. JoshuaZ 23:15, 21 February 2007 (EST)

Joshua: About how many artificial breeding experiments exist that show the genetic barrier has been crossed? I mean how many produced a non-sterile organism? Ray Martinez 23:10, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Evidence for lateral gene transfer between Archaea and bacteria from genome sequence of Thermotoga maritima. PMID: 10360571 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] This work shows lateral gene transfer. Many scientists view this as one of the multiple mechanisms that explain the addition of genetic material to the cell, not to mention the introduction of viral DNA into a host cell. --TimS 10:44, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Ray that's charmingly irrelevant, you'll note that nothing in the article mentions any issues with such breeding, and that the objection above had nothing whatsoever to do with any "genetic barrier" (not surprisingly, since no such concept is mentioned in the article at all). The main point was that the article claims among other things that genetic material cannot increase which is so false that even AIG agrees that such a claim is false and make the distinction between increasing material and increasing information . See for example, here where Sarfati asserts that "Gene duplication, polyploidy, insertions, etc., do not help explain evolution, however. They represent an increase in amount of DNA, but not an increase in the amount of functional genetic information" - so AIG agrees that genetic material can increase, but disagrees about genetic "information." JoshuaZ 23:18, 7 March 2007 (EST)

"Ray that's charmingly irrelevant...SNIP"

So there are none. Evolutionists insist that scientific facts are exclusively determined by experimentation; yet the main assertion of ToE (= speciation) has no breeding experiments to justify its reason for being? Are you saying it happens behind our backs in the wild? I ask again, Joshua, how many scientific experiments have breached genetic homeostasis? We know Darwin withdrew the only example of macroevolution from the second edition Origin of Species (bears to whales) leaving his book with zero content about the main claim of evolutionary theory (macroevolution). I would appreciate if you would just answer the question - thanks. Ray Martinez 12:23, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Ray, the question was completely and utterly irrelevant, but if you insist I'll answer anyways(why I'm bothering I don't know)- see for example Dobzhansky Pavlovsky's 1971 paper- "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila" Nature 23:289-292. Note furthermore, that speciation is so well demonstrated that AIG, one of the world's largest creationist ministries lists claiming speciation has not occured as an example of an argument that creationists should not use.[1]. In any event, this is all not germane to my original point- that the claim made here that mutation cannot increase genetic material is so wrong that even AIG agrees that that is inaccurate. JoshuaZ 13:04, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Are you claiming that speciesiation has never been observed in the lab? Nematocyte 12:37, 8 March 2007 (EST)

In fact, the ability for bacteria to mutate in ways that produce novel effects has been observed in the lab for over fifty years. See for example Lederberg and Lederberg, Replica plating and indirect selection of bacterial mutants. Journal of Bacteriology 63: 399-406 (1952). JoshuaZ 23:23, 21 February 2007 (EST)

So you have one experiment Drosophila that justifies the extraordinary and main claim of ToE (= macroevolution)? Why not a 100 or even 15? Are you telling me the main assertion of ToE has ONE questionable experiment to justify its existence? So much for experimentation determining facts. This is why we know the Emperor is naked. And by the way, we know that information in the genetic code can be read out but nothing can be written in, which still leaves us wanting an explanation as to where new information comes from?

Ray Martinez 12:11, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Since the page is now protected, I'll use this space to suggest that the entry start by clarifying that the term is used very differently by adherents and critics of evolutionary theory. How long before all pages on Conservapedia are locked, I wonder? Moioci 05:02, 1 March 2007 (EST)

For that matter, why is the page protected? There's been precisely one case of vandalism, and that was fully three days before the page was locked. Tsumetai 08:55, 1 March 2007 (EST)

A small point that should be attended to: "data" is plural, so the last sentence should read "the data are..." rather than "the data is..."--Murray 23:53, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Another point to add is that all theories are considered unproven. It is redundant to place unproven before theory in the first paragraph of this article.--TimS 10:44, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

The statement The scientific data regarding mutations causing the significant changes necessary for macroevolution is extremely damaging to the macroevolutionary position is completely false. PAX6 is a wonderful example of a gene found across species that encodes for sensory organs. Slight mutations of this gene account for the diversity of optical organs found at the phyla levels.--TimS 10:44, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Actually the diversity is mostly to do with the targets of Pax6, rather than changes in the gene itself, but that's not really important. In fact I would say that the article is confusion macromutation with macroevolution. Persumably creationists believe the theory of evolution predicts that annelids turned into vertebrates, which is really what that sentence would disprove. It just goes to show that the entire thing was written by someone with absolutely no basing in biology. Nematocyte 10:52, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Changes

Since this article is bound to be rather contentious, I'm going to explain my changes here, and invite other editors to do likewise:

1. "unproven theory" is redundant
2. "transform an organism into a completely different kind of organism" is simply wrong; is man completely different from other apes? No, of course not; we're all apes, all primates, all mammals, all animals, etc. etc.

Tsumetai 11:06, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

1. "Clade" defined clade.--TimS 15:11, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Fleshing out this page

I am currently working on fleshing out the page a bit. Please be kind as I am adding a little at a time.--TimS 17:22, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Conservative's revert and locking

Could you explain why you reverted this page and locked it while it was posted that it was being work on?--TimS 17:27, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

There is nothing that states that evolution is fact in what I wrote conservative. I stated that macroevolution was a hypothesized process within evolution. That is not stating that it was a fact nor that evolution was a fact. Please unlock this page and allow for further editing like the VSA said.--TimS 17:31, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Neutral Evolution

If the page was unprotected I could have finished with the editing so that you could see how Neutral evolution is a mech. of macroevolution. However since the page is still locked we nonsysops can not touch it.

Thanks Hojimachong for reverting the page.--TimS 07:03, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Post the complete edit here and I'll put it in if I think it does show that. Philip J. Rayment 07:59, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Tsumetai has reinserted neutral evolution bit, with the comment, "selectively neutral doesn't mean no change to the phenotype". No, but surely it doesn't mean that it constitutes macroevolution. Anyway, I'll wait for TimS' extra material. Philip J. Rayment 09:42, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

I will continue when I have the chance on the edit. I am on lunch right now. Tsumetai is correct in that neutral evolution does not mean a lack of change in the phenotype, an example in laymans terms, hair color is a neutral change in the phenotype. A single neutral change does not have an impact on the speciation but it is the accumilation of these phenotype changes that makes the difference and thus the impact on speciation. That is why neutral evolution is considered a mech. of macroevolution. --TimS 12:51, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Not all neutral drift is macroevolution, but it's still a mechanism that contributes significantly to the process. Tsumetai 17:33, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Conservative what the...!?

When you refer something to the panel you cannot delete all material that YOU YOURSELF object to, and then protect it. That is an abuse of power.-AmesG_yo! 17:18, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

I demand that you re-instate your content and THEN protect it. Articles should be preserved in the status quo under appeal, NOT subject to your caprices.-AmesG_yo! 17:19, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree this is a really ridiculous abuse of power. Sulgran 17:20, 14 April 2007 (EDT)