Macroevolution Puns

Context: I don't live with my parents but I see them frequently.

My dad's really interested in Christian scientists and generally smart people who converted to Christianity in adulthood after "assessing the facts" (Hugh Ross, Lee Strobel, etc.). Lately he's into people who oppose Darwin, although he does believe the earth is old (because of Hugh Ross, ironically). Anyways one of the main points he keeps talking at me about:

• not enough time has passed for Darwinian evolution to have worked as was described. He describes evolution as being a step-by-step process that, if there's a mistake somewhere down the line, the whole process needs to start over. Therefore, even if the earth is billions of years old, large-scale evolution doesn't add up.

Now I don't know this subject especially well so I could be wrong; I thought the idea was still possible within the timeframe of the universe since there's numerous of these "step-by-step" processes happening simultaneously, right? Would appreciate thoughts from people who know more on this subject. My reasons for de-converting are/were unrelated to the creation of the universe.

I am hoping to get a scientific answer for this. Yes, it is observable and provable that natural selection can favor certain mutations thus changing the species, but have significant changes (one species to another) ever been observed or recorded in the fossil record?

For example: The Asian Elephant, African Elephant, and Mammoth all evolved from Primelephas, but all three of those animals have major differences to their common ancestor (all different species). A Primelephas would have to go through several significant and successive changes before arriving at Wooly Mammoth, but there are no records of these changes in the fossil record.

It seems there is no complete map of these genetic changes for any existing species. All phylogenetic trees jump between species without looking at these subtle differences.

Am I misinformed, or does science really not know how these species jumps occured throughout evolution?

Thanks to all

Most of the time, it's Darwin's theory of evolution/macroevolution that is being referred to when talking of evolution. However when some possible challenges to Darwin's theory are brought up, some people go on and say that Darwin's theory is now outdated and a lot more progress has been made in the field. So which is the updated best and complete theory on the origin of humans via evolution/macroevolution?

Do they really think the phrase "Because god created us" is evidence?

How is macroevolution defined in biology? Creationists always define it different. When they talk about macroevolution, everyone has a different definition. I'm getting confused..

What is the right use of macroevolution? Or was that actually invented by Creationists?

Literally the only site where I’ve heard of “Human-Chimp”, “Human-Pig”, “Dog-Cow”, and “Bird-Sheep” hybrids. The list goes on and on and a lot of the combinations aren’t even the same species or classification. Is this possible and could it actually contribute to evolution? I’ve heard of two species branching off but never coming together. Just wondering if this site is legit. Thanks!

Here’s a link for reference:

http://www.macroevolution.net/pig-primate-hybrids.html

How do evolutionists account for sexual reproduction. Sexual reproduction is so unbelievably complex. And you can't have a male system halfway developed or vice versa. Both the male and female systems have to be fully developed for reproduction to occur. So small incremental changes won't help. They have to both be there working at the same time for reproduction to occur. So how do evolutionists account for this? Is this an Achilles heel for them?

Remember, creationists have basically three arguments against evolution: ignorance, incredulity and fraud.

This is /u/nomenmeum advocating all three.

The creationist argument against macro-evolution goes something like this…

>Macroevolution requires major changes to the essential body plans of animals. You are never going to turn a cow to turn into a whale by changing the color of its hair, even if you do this a million times over^1, just as you are never going to turn a car into a submarine by painting it a different color. Body plan changes are going to have to occur at a much more genetically fundamental level, and that means that they will require many simultaneous and intelligently coordinated mutations, which is prohibitively improbable.^2,3

> [...]

>And that is why macroevolution cannot happen by Darwinian processes. Macroevolution cannot be gradual, and it cannot be unguided^4. Any change affecting the basic body plan must occur in the genes that regulate embryonic development, genes that control the expression of many other genes that affect other genes that affect the fundamental body plan formation. But such a mutation in these genes that regulate the development of the embryo inevitably harms the organism because its effects are multiplied down the line in the process of embryonic development^5. The earlier the change, no matter how small in itself, the more catastrophic the effect, which explains why developmental biologists have never observed it to produce a viable animal.

>[...]

>But it is completely unreasonable to think that Darwinism can account even for the differences between humans and chimps, let alone those we see in less similar animals.^6

1. Ignoring that genetics is more than just changing colours, the genetic difference between you and ape is measurable, and so it does seem like a million, or a billion, tiny changes will eventually close that gap.

2. Mutations are occurring simultaneously, across the entire population. In the human population, every single viable SNP should be happening every generation, several times, despite the odds of any single SNP being very low. So, no, the odds that the mutations we need could arise in non-geological time is not that unusual. With recombination, these events can occur in parallel, as your algorithm demands but you insist is an impossibility.

3. The mutations a

Creationists generally seem to have no problem accepting Microevolution or "variation with kinds" as they call it, but they outright reject Macroevolution because as they not only argue there's no evidence for it but also that it just can't happen.

The problem is that Creationists already accept that Speciation happens, and since Macroevolution generally starts with speciation [2], this means that Creationists already accept Macroevolution. To get around this contradiction in logic, Creationists attempt to redefine the word Macroevolution to mean biological change from one "Kind" of organism to another "Kind" of organism [1]. By doing so, Creationists can easily dismiss any and all evidence for Macroevolution on the grounds that it doesn't fit their undefined criteria for one "Kind" changing into another "Kind".

Given the types of Evolution we've directly observed, as pointed out by Darwinzdf42 [3], which includes things such as the Evolution of; Multicellularity, Endosymbiosis, Viviparity, etc,... or the diversity we see amongst Plants that are compatible for Crossing and or Grafting [4,5], which is usually incontrovertible evidence of their common heritage... or just the extreme levels of biodiversity Creationists accept within Plant and Animal "Kinds" [6,7]... I personally see no difference in what Biologists would normally describe as Macroevolution compared to what Creationists accept as variation within "Kinds".

As a means of clarifying what the Creationist's criteria might be for what they think should count as Macroevolution, I have a few questions I'd like to ask them;

1. What is the least amount of biological change, either anatomical or molecular, that you would reasonably accept as being "Macroevolution" or "Change in Kind"?

2. Can you explain how that amount change would be any different from the variation you already accept within "Kinds"??

3. Why exactly are the differences between Humans and Chimps considered to be Macroevolution, given the levels of biodiversity you already accept within "Kinds", and taking into account the criteria you previously gave for what would constitute a Macroevolutionary change???

Thanks again for participating.

• Call Me Emo

References:

1. AIG Terms to Know (Definition of Macroevolution): https://answersingenesis.org/answers/terms-to-know/

2. Definition of Macroevolution: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution

3. Creation Myths:

Step 1: Strongly disagree with the definition of Macroevolution as proposed by the Biologists who invented the term to begin with, whilst giving no meaningful definition of your own.

Step 2: Give no clear criteria as to what would or should count as Macroevolution. If someone somehow manages to provide evidence that meets your already unclear criteria for Macroevolution, argue that the evidence doesn't count by making your criteria even more unclear.

Step 3: If steps 1 & 2 fails, demand to see evidence for Macroevolution that would violate the process of Evolution itself.

And these are the 3 basic steps to denying Macroevolution.

It's come up in a couple of disparate threads, and I'd like to bring a few threads together in one place.

 

There seem to be two flavors to the distinction, but neither actually provides a concrete, testable standard. One is mechanistic - either there are processes that must occur for "macroevolution" to happen, but do not, or there are processes that prevent macroevolution (i.e. "genetic entropy", which, just so we're clear, is not real). The second is based on genome content. Evolution cannot generate new information/function/traits/whatever beyond some threshold, so "macroevolution" would be the addition of new information that was not previously present.

 

Neither of these standards hold up to close examination. In terms of limiting mechanisms, there are ideas like "irreducible complexity" (nope) and "genetic entropy" (see above). In terms of content, generating new "information" (quotes because information is never defined in a testable way) is trivially easy, and we've figured out the exact pathways for some new structure, new as in "did not previously exist in any form", like feathers.

 

Going one step further, I think it's fair to say that for many creationists, "macroevolution" would constitute evolution of the magnitude from one "created kind" to another. This is something we've explored recently, and came up with a number of examples (see the comments in that last link) of traits that should violate the implied hypothesis, related to the "content" objection above, that each "kind" was "frontloaded" with genetic diversity, and major new traits could not arise within each "kind". I think those examples cause problems for the second type of distinction described above.

 

Getting away from these two categories of ways to draw a distinction between "micro" and "macro" evolution, we've observed/are observing changes of such magnitude that, if "macroevolution" is inherently unobservable, it should make one question where the line is to the point where one mig

I often hear christians talking about how they believe in microevolution but not macroevolution. I would guess because they have to accept evolution in some form because of the obvious evidence. However they cant fully accept it because it contradicts their worldview. This obviously is confusing because to me because they are both evolution, so how can you accept one without the other?

In fact I have heard from another atheists that macroevolution and microevolution are not real terms used by scientists? Is this true? Is this distinction made in the scientific community or are these terms just weak attempts from religious people trying to rationalize their worldview with science?

Creationists claim "macroevolution" can't happen, but don't actually define the term precisely. But I don't actually care, because you can define it however you want and I can give you an example.

In there, you'll find a new structure (feathers), speciation (apple maggot flies), viviparity (lots of lizards) endosymbiosis (Paulinella and lots of animals), multicellularity (Chlamydamonas), a completely new biochemical function (HIV-1 group M Vpu), and de novo genes (in a bunch of things).

If creationists would like to claim that none of that stuff counts as "macroevolution", all the better - that just means they're acknowledging that changes of these huge magnitudes can occur through evolutionary mechanisms.

I mean, if macroevolution occurs by way of microevolution, then why even distinguish between them as two separate processes? So what exactly causes macroevolution? The last time I checked, it was still being debated by scientists.

Why do creationists say microevolution is possible but macroevolution impossible? What is the physical/chemical/mechanistic reason why macroevolution is impossible?

In theory, one could have two populations different organisms with genomes of different sequences.

If you could check the sequences of their offspring, and selectively choose the offspring with sequences more similar to the other, is it theoretically possible that it would eventually become the other organism?

Why or why not?

[This post was inspired by the discussion at https://www.reddit.com/r/debatecreation/comments/egqb4f/logical_fallacies_used_for_common_ancestry/ ]

I grew up in a conservative evangelical environment. As such, evolution was a theory no one believed. But some of the more “intellectual” people would claim that they believe in microevolution (“well of course I believe in microevolution, it would be ridiculous not to”) but wholeheartedly disagreed with macroevolution. They failed to realize that microevolution really feeds into macro, they’re just on different time scales. And it’s not as if they were all new earth thinkers, some people believed the world was appropriately old, just couldn’t fathom evolution. I think these people were woefully uneducated in the topic or were willfully ignoring the science.

Hi I'm a little confused about the concept of the molecular clock. So I understand that we can use the fairly constant rate of molecular changes over time to determine the time of divergence and the relatedness of two species. How does this constant rate of molecular changes relate to macroevolution? Which depends on many factors such as environmental selective pressures? And since the rate of molecular changes is dependent on time, how does the environment factor into this at all?

For context, I'm a student and we're doing a lab about the molecular clock. We've constructed the scatter plot to show the constant rate of accumulation in changes of the hemoglobin amino acid sequence of different primate species. But there's a question about the ancestral ring-tailed lemur and its native environment (Madagascar), and how the environmental restrictions influences the molecular differences of the lemur and other species? I'm confused because if the molecular differences is mainly dependent on time, I don't see how the environment would have anything to do with it?

Thanks in advance

So the debate about evolution came up in class today. My christian physics professor was clear about making the distinction between microevolution and macroevolution. He argued microevolution being observable and factual but macroevolution between animal kinds is not an objective fact and instead a "belief system". What is the counter argument to this? I mentioned the evidence of homologous structures and comparative zygote development but he nonetheless insisted it not to be a provable fact.

The logic behind using Cross Pollinating & Grafting Compatibility as evidence for Common Ancestry works in the exact same way as the logic behind using Sexual Compatibility and Hybridization as evidence for Common Ancestry. It is a well known botanical fact that only closely related Plants can Pollinate and Graft successfully. The more closely related two or more species of Plants are to each other is the more likely they'll compatible,... and the further you go Phylogenetically speaking, the least likely they'll be compatible [4]. Crossing and Grafting success can vary among different groups of Plants (in the same way hybridization would), but the rule still holds that only closely related Plants can successfully Cross and or Graft and they're no known exceptions to this.

Thus, the ability of two or more Species to successfully Hybridize, Pollinate, or Graft is indisputable evidence of their common heritage, regardless of any apparent differences between them.

This information was originally intended to tackle Creationists arguments on evidence for Evolution, but it still serves the same purpose of demonstrating the reality of Macroevolution. I think there's plenty strong evidence for common ancestry in Plants that many are either unfamiliar with, or not interested in, but nevertheless I think it was worth while sharing this.

Thanks again for taking the time to read this.

• Call Me Emo

References:

1. Grafting Compatibility in Plants; Call Me Emo, 2020: [citations within link] https://imgur.com/a/hmc8XoZ

2. Cross Pollination within well known Plant groups; Call Me Emo, 2020: [citations within link] https://m.imgur.com/a/jWPGgGR

3. The Extraordinary Evolution of Brassica and the emergence of Phyllotaxis in Romanesco Broccoli (Brassicaceae Kind); Call Me Emo, 2020: [citations within link] https://m.imgur.com/a/Ad30Zfz

4. Propagation of Plants by Grafting and Budding; G.N.M. Kumar, 2011: [PDF] https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://growables.com/information/documents/PlantPropagationGraftingBuddin.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj62rnd8sPqAhXuRt8KHcKkAzkQFjAAegQIBBAB&usg=AOvVaw0iZnK9o4i4RIpUuqPo6nCL

I’m not asking if this is what happened scientifically, but just on compatibility with scripture. I do believe macroevolution is because I can’t see any way it contradicts. I had always believed that macroevolution is not compatible with the Bible, but I’ve stumbled across Christians on this sub that actually do believe they work. I feel like macroevolution would contradict Adam and Eve because it says that God formed Adam from the dust of the Earth instead of him being born naturally through apes. What are your thoughts on this?

We have proofs of micro evolution and we saw species turn into other species like this bird but it's a bird becoming another bird. I mean things like a species of reptile becoming a species of bird.

Pd: sorry if i have bad english.

I saw this question asked on DebateReligion but it went south pretty quickly, as expected.

I had read once an argument giving the plum as an example that there is this thing called 'genetic limit' beyond which mutations could not go and still keep the organism non-sterile. But I may be wrong.

Did everything evolve from 1 original organism or were things created like the Bible says?

I know this is easier with many microorganisms, like bacteria, given the amount of species that reproduce ridiculously fast. But I was curious if this was feasible with some animal species with a very fast breeding rate, I don't know which one but I was guessing some insect like Drosophila melanogaster (also because the ridiculous high amount of eggs they lay) or perhaps another one that has an even fastest breeding rate and and a shorter larval stage.

I'm not talking about artificial selection in the sense that it wouldn't be about breeding individuals with some desirable characteristic. It would be just about "playing" with selective pressure, changing something about the conditions of the environment, or the ways of obtaining food, or the placement of food, or adding some particular predator; in a way that it wouldn't kill the entire population but natural selection would be applied on them allowing only the fittest individuals regarding these environmental changes to survive and reproduce.

Now, the reason for a fast breeding species wouldn't just be for noticing the effect of natural selection on the offspring, but also because the more reproductions, the more chances for random mutations to appear.

I know this has been done with mice and other animals, but I was interested in something more than microevolution, not just seeing the effects of natural selection on the already present features. I was interested in seeing bigger changes with new features due to the chances of mutations being more frequent given the fast breeding rate and the constant selective pressure being applied to the species.

Is that possible? Or even considering a fast breeding species (let's say some insect) it would still require hundreds of years to see some noticeable macroevolution? I was interested in whether or not it was feasible to observe actually big changes in terms of evolution and adaptation to the environment in a human life time. Obviously it's still a thought experiment, I don't have the resources to do any of this, but I was still curious. Thanks in advance!

Over on /r/creation in a post titled "For those who think micro evolution occurs: where is the cut off between micro and macro evolution?", there are commenters who state that macroevolution is unobserved or can't happen, like you usually find in creationist forums. But one user, /u/gmtime, goes one step further and says creationists shouldn't use the terms microevolution and macroevolution, but should instead use the terms "observed mutation" and "inferred mutation." Why? Let's let him speak:

> That seems like a reasonable differentiation. Though it will cause lots of confusion. I'd drop the term evolution altogether and talk about mutation instead. Then it becomes observed mutation and inferred mutation, which actually point out what you're trying to talk about.

/u/apophis-pegasus rightly corrects this argument:

> Mutation is not evolution though. Mutation is a source of variation.

And gmtime punts this awfully ignorant argument into the sidelines:

> No it's not. Mutation is a gene changing in a way that it did not exist in the parents. Variation is a shuffling of the genes that do exist in the parents.

> Example: a brown father with straight hair and a brown mother with curly hair get a brown kid with wavy hair is variation; the information for the waviness was already available in the parents. The same parents getting an albino kid is mutation; neither of the parents had genetic information that caused the skin to become white.

> Evolution is the theory that a huge cascade of mutations will create all the different living organisms from the same (or same small set of) genetic root material.

> Talking about micro vs macro evolution muddles the waters, because what's actually the question is whether (inferred) mutations actual do lead to evolution.

It's incredible that someone who knows nothing about biology is trying to argue that we should use new terms because "evolution" is confusing, all while not understanding how mutations, inherited traits, gene expression work, and also while arguing that muta

The Darwinian argument for macroevolution goes like this…

Microevolution is true.

(In other words, very small beneficial mutations do occur and are selected for.)

Macroevolution is simply an accumulation of such changes over a long period of time.

(In other words, just as a small puddle will become a large puddle if enough drops of water fall in, so macroevolution will result from microevolution, given enough time.)

The first premise is true. The second one is not. Here is why: A puddle is not a highly integrated, functional system of interdependent parts. A living organism is.

Macroevolution requires major changes to the essential body plans of animals. You are never going to turn a cow into something as different as a whale by changing things like the color of its hair, just as you are never going to turn a car into a submarine by painting it a different color. Body plan changes are going to have to occur at a much more genetically fundamental level, and that means that they will require many simultaneous and intelligently coordinated mutations, which is prohibitively improbable for a mindless, unguided process like evolution.

As Stephen Meyer notes in Darwin’s Doubt,

“If an automaker modifies a car’s paint color or seat covers, nothing else needs to be altered for the car to operate, because the normal function of the car does not depend upon these features.”

However,

“if an engineer changes the length of the piston rods in the car’s engine, and does not modify the crankshaft accordingly, the crankshaft won’t run.”

And that is why macroevolution cannot happen by Darwinian processes. Macroevolution cannot be gradual, and it cannot be unguided. Any change affecting the basic body plan must occur in the genes that regulate embryonic development, genes that control the expression of many other genes that affect other genes that affect the fundamental body plan formation. But such a mutation in these genes that regulate the development of the embryo inevitably harms the organism because its effects are multiplied down the line in the process of embryonic development. The earlier the change, no matter how small in itself, the more catastrophic the effect, which explains why developmental biologists have never observed it to produce a viable animal.

Just as a simple example, if a fruit fly mutates in such a way that it gets an extra set of wings, it must also have the good luck to suffer a simultaneous mut

The logic behind using Cross Pollinating & Grafting Compatibility as evidence for Common Ancestry works in the exact same way as the logic behind using Sexual Compatibility and Hybridization as evidence for Common Ancestry. It is a well known botanical fact that only closely related Plants can Pollinate and Graft successfully. The more closely related two or more species of Plants are to each other is the more likely they'll compatible,... and the further you go Phylogenetically speaking, the least likely they'll be compatible [4]. Crossing and Grafting success can vary among different groups of Plants (in the same way hybridization would), but the rule still holds that only closely related Plants can successfully Cross and or Graft and they're no known exceptions to this.

Thus, the ability of two or more Species to successfully Hybridize, Pollinate, or Graft is indisputable evidence of their common heritage, regardless of any apparent differences between them.

This information was originally intended to tackle Creationists arguments on evidence for Evolution, but it still serves the same purpose of demonstrating the reality of Macroevolution. I think there's plenty strong evidence for common ancestry in Plants that many are either unfamiliar with, or not interested in, but nevertheless I think it was worth while sharing this.

Thanks again for taking the time to read this.

• Call Me Emo

References:

1. Baraminology and Grafting Compatibility in Plants; Call Me Emo, 2020: [citations within link] https://imgur.com/a/hmc8XoZ

2. Cross Pollination within well known Plant groups; Call Me Emo, 2020: [citations within link] https://m.imgur.com/a/jWPGgGR

3. The Extraordinary Evolution of Brassica and the emergence of Phyllotaxis in Romanesco Broccoli (Brassicaceae Kind); Call Me Emo, 2020: [citations within link] https://m.imgur.com/a/Ad30Zfz

4. Propagation of Plants by Grafting and Budding; G.N.M. Kumar, 2011: [PDF] https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://growables.com/information/documents/PlantPropagationGraftingBuddin.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj62rnd8sPqAhXuRt8KHcKkAzkQFjAAegQIBBAB&usg=AOvVaw0iZnK9o4i4RIpUuqPo6nCL