# Micro Evolution vs. Macro Evolution Explained Graphically

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/micro-evolution-vs-macro-evolution-explained-graphically/1334>\
**Category:** Side Conversation\
**Created:** [August 24, 2018, 2:05pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/micro-evolution-vs-macro-evolution-explained-graphically/1334 "2018-08-24T14:05:21Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 4

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![colewd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecd19e/32.png) [@colewd](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/colewd)\
**Post date:** [August 27, 2018, 4:07pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/micro-evolution-vs-macro-evolution-explained-graphically/1334/61 "2018-08-27T16:07:42Z")

</div>

> [@swamidass](#):
>
> @T_aquaticus is correct on the math here and also in how it applies to biology.

I would argue that the sequence that appears has a probability 100%. This is a bogus probability problem.

A real problem would be the probability of the sequence appearing again after a second shuffle.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Ashwin\_s](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/ashwin_s/32/4017_2.png) [@Ashwin\_s](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Ashwin_s)\
**Post date:** [August 27, 2018, 4:11pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/micro-evolution-vs-macro-evolution-explained-graphically/1334/62 "2018-08-27T16:11:23Z")

</div>

> [@T\_aquaticus](#):
>
> It most certainly will. The total possible number of shuffled decks is 52!.

Shuffling cards is not a really random process. Each way of doing it leads to limited options. It’s difficult to Calculate. For example of I take two new deck of cards and riffle shuffle both once. The chance of getting the same arrangement is not as low as you calculate. 🙂… the reason is because of the same initial conditions and a similar method of shuffling.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![T\_aquaticus](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/t_aquaticus/32/1249_2.png) [@T\_aquaticus](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/T_aquaticus)\
**Post date:** [August 27, 2018, 4:12pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/micro-evolution-vs-macro-evolution-explained-graphically/1334/63 "2018-08-27T16:12:17Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> No, the chance with of each human being born with the mutations they are born with is 100%. The chance of getting the poker hand you have been dealt is 100%.

And the probability of certain features evolving is 100%, because it evolved. This is the point that Behe usually fails to understand.

> [@colewd](#):
>
> Where evolutionists get in trouble with probability is when they assign random chance to an outcome just like you are trying to do with your steps to the evolution of the eye.

You left out natural selection again.

> [@colewd](#):
>
> If you are claiming that the path between steps leading to the eye is random this is problematic if the number of simultaneous mutations required is not feasibly obtained.

You haven’t shown any mutations that would have to happen simultaneously in order for the eye to evolve.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![T\_aquaticus](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/t_aquaticus/32/1249_2.png) [@T\_aquaticus](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/T_aquaticus)\
**Post date:** [August 27, 2018, 4:12pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/micro-evolution-vs-macro-evolution-explained-graphically/1334/64 "2018-08-27T16:12:58Z")

</div>

> [@Ashwin\_s](#):
>
> Shuffling cards is not a really random process. Each way of doing it leads to limited options. It’s difficult to Calculate. For example of I take two new deck of cards and riffle shuffle both once. The chance of getting the same arrangement is not as low as you calculate. 🙂… the reason is because of the same initial conditions and a similar method of shuffling.

The analogy assumes that all possible outcomes are equal.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Ashwin\_s](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/ashwin_s/32/4017_2.png) [@Ashwin\_s](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Ashwin_s)\
**Post date:** [August 27, 2018, 4:15pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/micro-evolution-vs-macro-evolution-explained-graphically/1334/65 "2018-08-27T16:15:14Z")

</div>

> [@T\_aquaticus](#):
>
> The analogy assumes that all possible outcomes are equal.

Assumptions need not be true.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![T\_aquaticus](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/t_aquaticus/32/1249_2.png) [@T\_aquaticus](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/T_aquaticus)\
**Post date:** [August 27, 2018, 4:16pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/micro-evolution-vs-macro-evolution-explained-graphically/1334/66 "2018-08-27T16:16:14Z")

</div>

> [@Ashwin\_s](#):
>
> Assumptions need not be true.

Nits need not be picked.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Ashwin\_s](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/ashwin_s/32/4017_2.png) [@Ashwin\_s](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Ashwin_s)\
**Post date:** [August 27, 2018, 4:23pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/micro-evolution-vs-macro-evolution-explained-graphically/1334/67 "2018-08-27T16:23:45Z")

</div>

> [@T\_aquaticus](#):
>
> Nits need not be picked.

It’s reality… 🙂

Edit : As per mathematicians, a deck of cards needs to be shuffled 7 times to get a truly Ra Dom distribution…  
[https://www.nytimes.com/1990/01/09/science/in-shuffling-cards-7-is-winning-number.html](https://www.nytimes.com/1990/01/09/science/in-shuffling-cards-7-is-winning-number.html)  
@swamidass: another non intuitive discovery by science… 🙂

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![colewd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecd19e/32.png) [@colewd](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/colewd)\
**Post date:** [August 27, 2018, 4:35pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/micro-evolution-vs-macro-evolution-explained-graphically/1334/68 "2018-08-27T16:35:51Z")

</div>

> [@T\_aquaticus](#):
>
> You haven’t shown any mutations that would have to happen simultaneously in order for the eye to evolve.

No, but if we could demonstrate this through knock out experiments would you agree the hypothesis is falsified?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![colewd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecd19e/32.png) [@colewd](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/colewd)\
**Post date:** [August 27, 2018, 4:37pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/micro-evolution-vs-macro-evolution-explained-graphically/1334/69 "2018-08-27T16:37:23Z")

</div>

> [@T\_aquaticus](#):
>
> And the probability of certain features evolving is 100%, because it evolved. This is the point that Behe usually fails to understand.

Do you see your reasoning is circular here?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Ashwin\_s](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/ashwin_s/32/4017_2.png) [@Ashwin\_s](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Ashwin_s)\
**Post date:** [August 27, 2018, 4:39pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/micro-evolution-vs-macro-evolution-explained-graphically/1334/70 "2018-08-27T16:39:58Z")

</div>

> [@swamidass](#):
>
> @T_aquaticus is correct on the math here and also in how it applies to biology.

By his logic, if I have a vocabulary of 200 words, then the chances of me repeating a word in an essay is 1 out of 200 factorial. Is it correct science to assume all mutations are equally possible?  
Are you suggesting biologists look at mutations that way?  
This is an interesting piece of trivia. But it can’t be science.  
Edit: Besides, it’s not like any particular combination is required. The important combinations would be those that cause a functional difference.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![colewd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecd19e/32.png) [@colewd](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/colewd)\
**Post date:** [August 27, 2018, 4:42pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/micro-evolution-vs-macro-evolution-explained-graphically/1334/71 "2018-08-27T16:42:52Z")

</div>

> [@T\_aquaticus](#):
>
> You left out natural selection again.

The problem is in-between the steps of selection.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![T\_aquaticus](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/t_aquaticus/32/1249_2.png) [@T\_aquaticus](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/T_aquaticus)\
**Post date:** [August 27, 2018, 4:52pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/micro-evolution-vs-macro-evolution-explained-graphically/1334/72 "2018-08-27T16:52:40Z")

</div>

> [@Ashwin\_s](#):
>
> It’s reality… 🙂

It’s an analogy. Nit picking the analogy does nothing to change the main argument.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![T\_aquaticus](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/t_aquaticus/32/1249_2.png) [@T\_aquaticus](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/T_aquaticus)\
**Post date:** [August 27, 2018, 4:52pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/micro-evolution-vs-macro-evolution-explained-graphically/1334/73 "2018-08-27T16:52:57Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> The problem is in-between the steps of selection.

How is it a problem?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![T\_aquaticus](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/t_aquaticus/32/1249_2.png) [@T\_aquaticus](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/T_aquaticus)\
**Post date:** [August 27, 2018, 4:56pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/micro-evolution-vs-macro-evolution-explained-graphically/1334/74 "2018-08-27T16:56:41Z")

</div>

> [@Ashwin\_s](#):
>
> Is it correct science to assume all mutations are equally possible?

Not all mutations are equally probable. With respect to substitution mutations, CpG mutations have a much higher chance of occuring, and transition mutations will outnumber transversion mutations for the non-CpG mutations. Genetic recombination has a much higher chance of occuring in repeat regions due to complementary sequence. Transposons have a much higher chance of producing duplications than non-transposons.

However, the main argument still stands. The human population is large enough that we can still expect to see nearly every possible non-lethal substitution mutation in at least one human.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Ashwin\_s](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/ashwin_s/32/4017_2.png) [@Ashwin\_s](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Ashwin_s)\
**Post date:** [August 27, 2018, 4:58pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/micro-evolution-vs-macro-evolution-explained-graphically/1334/75 "2018-08-27T16:58:09Z")

</div>

> [@T\_aquaticus](#):
>
> However, the main argument still stands. The human population is large enough that we can still expect to see nearly every possible non-lethal substitution mutation in at least one human.

Yes, but which mutations are significant in terms of function? Any random mutation is useless for evolution.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![T\_aquaticus](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/t_aquaticus/32/1249_2.png) [@T\_aquaticus](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/T_aquaticus)\
**Post date:** [August 27, 2018, 5:02pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/micro-evolution-vs-macro-evolution-explained-graphically/1334/76 "2018-08-27T17:02:00Z")

</div>

> [@Ashwin\_s](#):
>
> Yes, but which mutations are significant in terms of function? Any random mutation is useless for evolution.

Tying mutations to differences in function is very difficult. However, there is no doubt that differences in function are due to differences in DNA sequence.

Would you agree that the differences between humans is due to differences in the DNA sequence of their genomes?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![colewd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecd19e/32.png) [@colewd](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/colewd)\
**Post date:** [August 27, 2018, 5:04pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/micro-evolution-vs-macro-evolution-explained-graphically/1334/77 "2018-08-27T17:04:11Z")

</div>

> [@T\_aquaticus](#):
>
> How is it a problem?

You are doing a blind search between selection steps through a sequence.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![T\_aquaticus](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/t_aquaticus/32/1249_2.png) [@T\_aquaticus](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/T_aquaticus)\
**Post date:** [August 27, 2018, 5:06pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/micro-evolution-vs-macro-evolution-explained-graphically/1334/78 "2018-08-27T17:06:15Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> You are doing a blind search between selection steps through a sequence.

And how is that a problem?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![colewd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecd19e/32.png) [@colewd](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/colewd)\
**Post date:** [August 27, 2018, 5:07pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/micro-evolution-vs-macro-evolution-explained-graphically/1334/79 "2018-08-27T17:07:21Z")

</div>

> [@T\_aquaticus](#):
>
> And how is that a problem?

I have already shown you that you are dealing with functional space that is a fraction of search space.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Ashwin\_s](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/ashwin_s/32/4017_2.png) [@Ashwin\_s](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Ashwin_s)\
**Post date:** [August 27, 2018, 5:09pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/micro-evolution-vs-macro-evolution-explained-graphically/1334/80 "2018-08-27T17:09:12Z")

</div>

> [@T\_aquaticus](#):
>
> Tying mutations to differences in function is very difficult. However, there is no doubt that differences in function are due to differences in DNA sequence.
> 
> Would you agree that the differences between humans is due to differences in the DNA sequence of their genomes?

So aren’t you making a case against evolution?. Out of a really huge set of possible mutations ,only an unknown (much smaller?) number is functionally Significant… this making the probability of getting functionally significant mutations potentially lower than the no: of molecules in the universe!  
You can’t just do hand waving and say differences in humans is due to differences in DNA. What about environment , food habits, pollution, psychological condition, world view, religious beliefs, no: of siblings, marital status of parents etc… all of these and more are statistically proven to cause differences between humans. The genotyoe phenotype connection is not air tight. Genetic difference might or might not cause phenotypic variation. Other causes also cause phenotypic variation.

[Previous page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/micro-evolution-vs-macro-evolution-explained-graphically/1334.md?page=3)

[Next page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/micro-evolution-vs-macro-evolution-explained-graphically/1334.md?page=5)