From Conservapedia
This is the current revision of Talk:Macroevolution as edited by Machine13 (Talk | contribs) at 17:05, August 26, 2010. This URL is a permanent link to this version of this page.

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

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)

When I read this it just seems like this is being treated poorly because of a lack of evidence. This is simply explained because man's curiosity into evolution has only been around for 200 years and out scientific intellect for only a few thousands and no one has observed this incredibly slow process (it takes millions of years). Plus crazy examples like "little bacterium became starfish that became bears" just don't fit into the theory; that's not the point, the point is that similar yet reproductively isolated species were related but due to a speciation event (geographical, natural selection) were no longer able to reproduce with one another and their genes just stopped being compatible with each other due to mutations (over time). --Snotbowst 15:17, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

Your faith in evolution is touching, but did you ever stop to think that the "lack of evidence" might be because it didn't happen? Philip J. Rayment 01:14, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

Yor 'faith' in God is touching, but did you ever stop to think that 'lack of evidence' (outside the rantings of desert warlords and mass murderers over two thousand years ago) means he 'doesn't excist'


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)
I'll need more convincing than that. A change in hair colour could be no stretch of the imagination be considered macroevolution. Perhaps the following analogy is bad, but if mutations could be rated according to their impact, some might be negative (-1), some positive (+1), and some neutral (0). An accumulation of neutral changes (0+0+0+0+0+0)... I think you can see where I'm going there. Philip J. Rayment 20:13, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
Sure, a string of selectively neutral mutations is itself selectively neutral. But the phenotypic effect of each may be non-zero, so when you add those together, you can end up with an arbitrarily large phenotypic shift.
For that matter, even silent mutations contribute to evolution by providing more variation upon which future mutations can act. Tsumetai 20:39, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
If even neutral mutations count as a mechanism of macroevolution, what is microevolution? Philip J. Rayment 02:25, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
Change below the species level, basically. Any given genetic mechanism can contribute to both micro and macro. Tsumetai 07:26, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
But if a mutation is neutral, then surely it is below the species level, almost if not actually by definition? Philip J. Rayment 08:40, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
Probably, although there are probably ways to achieve speciation through purely neutral shifts; think changes in sexual selection which lead to a segregation of the population while leaving the net fitness unchanged. But the point is that most genetic mechanisms aren't either 'micro' or 'macro.' They tend to contribute to both. Tsumetai 04:19, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
Tsumetai, you are correct. Another factor is that neutral mutations do get passed on as the organism evolves, and since mutations are not considered positive or negative until the environmental stresses test them or they cause the organism to have some fatal flaw (tay sachs for example) they can lead to macro and micro changes.--TimS 15:25, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

the point is that most genetic mechanisms aren't either 'micro' or 'macro.': surely the point is that 'micro' and 'macro' are distinctions made by Creationists, so when Philip Rayment asks If even neutral mutations count as a mechanism of macroevolution, what is microevolution?, it is up to him or others of his belief system to answer. Which should be easy for him, because he contends that there are more species (or kinds) extant today than there were on Noah's Ark, so he must accept that speciation (and hence, presumably 'macroevolution') occurs. Chrysogonus 17:46, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

"micro" and "macro" distinctions are not made solely by creationists, and many if not most creationary scientists these day avoid use of the terms, as they are ill-defined and miss the main point anyway. I do accept that speciation occurs, but whether or not that constitutes macroevolution is something that I don't really care about. What it does not constitute is an increase in genetic information, which is what evolution requires. Philip J. Rayment 22:39, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

user: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.-AmesGyo! 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.-AmesGyo! 17:19, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
I agree this is a really ridiculous abuse of power. Sulgran 17:20, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
Conservative, you have a lot of people allied against you on this. It is improper to modify a page that has been submitted to the Panel.-AmesGyo! 22:25, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
Not for him. He got away with it on the Theory of Evolution page. Even after the panel ruled, he got away with making an important substantive change (removing the link to The Origin of Species itself) without even a slap on the wrist; the only comment made on that at all by anyone with power, was the Panel mischaracterizing it is him adding a book to the recommended reading list. Nothing is improper for Conservative. --Jtl 00:22, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

CPWebmaster, this has been submitted to the Panel. It should either be blanked or kept in the condition it was prior to its submission. That was this version.-AmesGyo! 11:27, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Sysops, this matter deserves attention. The page should be unlocked asap, and unreferred to the Panel, or it should be reverted to its state prior to submission.-AmesGyo! 23:57, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

References section needed

Can someone please add a references section to this article? I will put the appropriate text here so you can see how to do it. (This will also create such a section here, I think.)


There were references before the revert.--TimS 15:21, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
Funny, here it is three weeks later and I just added a section to say just this (which I deleted when I saw this section). WAKE UP somebody, please. Human 20:26, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
There's currently no <ref>-type references in the article to show in a <references /> section. Philip J. Rayment 06:47, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
It has been locked for weeks. Conservative's revert did not need them but the reverts before it had them. I think that Human wants some references to Conservative's claims.--TimS 06:49, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Will this page ever be unlocked?

It has been 2.5 weeks since this page was locked. Will it ever be unlocked so that further editing can be done? Right now its current state does not provide enough information to make it usable by students.--TimS 08:59, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

ProX' edits

I reverted ProX' edits, and he reverted them back, so before reverting them again, I'm going to explain in greater detail than my previous edit comment why.

  • "Macroevolution is a term used by Creationists": True, but (a) it's also used by evolutionists (who coined the term) and (b) is also deliberately not used by leading creationists. So this statement is misleading.
  • "However, scientists do not make this distinction...": As just mentioned, evolutionists do (or at least have) used these terms. Also, this phrase falsely implies that scientists and creationists are two mutually-exclusive groups.
  • "...the overall theory behind macroevolution (i.e. common descent) has been overwhelmingly consistent with empirical data.": That is opinion masquerading as fact.
  • "Predictions of empirical data from the theory of common descent have been so consistent that biologists often refer to it as the on as the "fact of evolution".": Apart from the grammatical error, they do refer to it as "fact", but this is because of their ideology, not overwhelming evidence.
  • "Creationists accept that evolutionary change is possible within species ("microevolution")...": Actually, leading creationists reject "evolutionary" change. That is, change that is observed is not "evolutionary", in the sense that such changes can lead to the evolutionary "family tree".
  • "...but deny that one species can evolve into another ("macroevolution").": On the contrary, leading creationists accept the existence of speciation.

The new "Methods of Macroevolution" may not be similarly faulty, but the title presumes the existence of what the rest of the article now argues is a fallacy! I think that this section would be better off in a different article (although at the moment I'm not sure which one).

Philip J. Rayment 12:30, 5 July 2008 (EDT)