# 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:** 7

<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 28, 2018, 4:54pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/micro-evolution-vs-macro-evolution-explained-graphically/1334/121 "2018-08-28T16:54:43Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> The hands that could have been dealt are not relevant to the analysis. I am observing the hand that was dealt and determining if it was fairly dealt from a properly shuffled deck. With four straight flushes my analysis is easy.

The problem is that you don’t have four straight flushes.

> [@colewd](#):
>
> As in biology we are observing a sequence of DNA that generates proteins and I am determining if they could have been formed by a random process.

The problem is that the sequences you are looking at were not produced by a random process. They evolved.

> [@colewd](#):
>
> I think this a valid observation for some proteins but not the vast majority. This ignores proteins made up of several transcribed sub units. Doug Axe’s work was an example of this. It also ignores proteins that bind to several other proteins which is common in the cell nucleus.

Axe only looked at one singular enzymatic reaction. You can’t say that a protein has no function because it fails to react with B-lactam antibiotics. Using Axe’s criteria, there are no functional proteins in the human genome.

---

<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 28, 2018, 4:58pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/micro-evolution-vs-macro-evolution-explained-graphically/1334/122 "2018-08-28T16:58:16Z")

</div>

> [@Ashwin\_s](#):
>
> Yes but you don’t have evidence. I posted a discussion here between Dennis Bible,Lynn Margolis, Dawkins etc. Lynn Margolis asks Dawkins to give one exMple where speciation has happened by random mutations (meaning substitution mutation). He couldn’t give one. All he could hide behind was “parsimony”. Your intuition is not worth much without actual evidence.  
> That’s the whole point. You might be right. Buy we can’t know till there is actual evidence.

I can give you 40 million mutations as examples of mutation that have caused speciation. Those are the mutations that separate the human and chimp genomes.

> [@Ashwin\_s](#):
>
> Embryonic development is a complex process. Read up on cross species NT (Nuclear transfer). The embryo does not develop in most cases except for very close species.(which would be expected from examples of cross breeding between tiger and lion etc).

And that is due to mutations that separate the two species.

> [@Ashwin\_s](#):
>
> The entire system. End of the day gene expression can cause far more difference than point mutations.  
> We have examples of organisms that look identical while having very different genomes. And organisms with identical genomes can present different phenotypes. For example identical twins don’t show identical propensity to diseases.In honey bees, the queen and female workers share the same genome. Yet phenotype is different. And in our own bodies, the kidney cell has the same genome as the neuron… yet totally different phenotypes. There is much more going on into what makes an organism that just the genetic code.

What do you think causes differences in gene expression between humans and chimps?

---

<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 28, 2018, 4:58pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/micro-evolution-vs-macro-evolution-explained-graphically/1334/123 "2018-08-28T16:58:16Z")

</div>

> [@T\_aquaticus](#):
>
> The problem is that you don’t have four straight flushes.

Are you forgetting there are 4 suits? 🙂

---

<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 28, 2018, 4:59pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/micro-evolution-vs-macro-evolution-explained-graphically/1334/124 "2018-08-28T16:59:28Z")

</div>

You are begging the question.  
Mutations need not equate to speciation…

---

<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 28, 2018, 5:00pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/micro-evolution-vs-macro-evolution-explained-graphically/1334/125 "2018-08-28T17:00:19Z")

</div>

> [@T\_aquaticus](#):
>
> I can give you 40 million mutations as examples of mutation that have caused speciation. Those are the mutations that separate the human and chimp genomes.

You’re begging the question here. If you argue to show common descent and evolution is true you cannot assume your conclusion.

---

<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 28, 2018, 5:10pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/micro-evolution-vs-macro-evolution-explained-graphically/1334/126 "2018-08-28T17:10:55Z")

</div>

> [@Ashwin\_s](#):
>
> You are begging the question.  
> Mutations need not equate to speciation…

But they do equate to speciation. The reason that species are incapable of interbreeding is the DNA differences between them.

---

<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 28, 2018, 5:43pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/micro-evolution-vs-macro-evolution-explained-graphically/1334/127 "2018-08-28T17:43:51Z")

</div>

> [@Bill Cole's Case For Design](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/bill-coles-case-for-design/1337/185):
>
> The evidence is all of the lineages where eyes evolved independently.

Again, you are begging the question also known as circular reasoning. Evolution is true, eyes evolved many times so its easy to evolve eyes. You assumed your conclusion.

---

<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 28, 2018, 8:01pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/micro-evolution-vs-macro-evolution-explained-graphically/1334/128 "2018-08-28T20:01:41Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> Again, you are begging the question also known as circular reasoning.

Common ancestry and evolution are already established by other evidence, such as the nested hierarchy.

---

<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 28, 2018, 8:12pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/micro-evolution-vs-macro-evolution-explained-graphically/1334/129 "2018-08-28T20:12:11Z")

</div>

> [@T\_aquaticus](#):
>
> Common ancestry and evolution are already established by other evidence, such as the nested hierarchy.

You’re not supporting your claim directly but I understand this is the best you have.

---

<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 28, 2018, 8:29pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/micro-evolution-vs-macro-evolution-explained-graphically/1334/130 "2018-08-28T20:29:20Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> You’re not supporting your claim directly but I understand this is the best you have.

The nested hierarchy is direct evidence.

---

<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 28, 2018, 8:48pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/micro-evolution-vs-macro-evolution-explained-graphically/1334/131 "2018-08-28T20:48:06Z")

</div>

> [@T\_aquaticus](#):
>
> The nested hierarchy is direct evidence.

Not of the mechanism you are claiming can do the job. The theory has you reasoning in circles. If your hypothesis is, random genetic change (and selection) can create an eye you have to directly test that specific claim. The nested hierarchy is not evidence of random change creating an eye. It is evidence that living organisms have common features.

When I asked for a quantitive answer you were not able to provide one and I understand but at the end of the day your claim is not tested.

---

<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 28, 2018, 8:54pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/micro-evolution-vs-macro-evolution-explained-graphically/1334/132 "2018-08-28T20:54:56Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> Not of the mechanism you are claiming can do the job.

The pattern of conserved sequences in exons is direct evidence for natural selection. The bias towards transition mutations and CpG mutations is direct evidence of mutations. The nested hierarchy is evidence for these mechanisms changing DNA within lineages that share a common ancestor through vertical inheritance. The evidence is all there. There is nothing circular about it.

> [@colewd](#):
>
> When I asked for a quantitive answer you were not able to provide one and I understand but at the end of the day your claim is not tested.

Phylogenetics does give quantitative answers. Read more here:

> **[29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#independent_convergence)**
>
> This article directly addresses the scientific evidences in favor of macroevolutionary theory and common descent. It is specifically intended for those who are scientifically minded but, for one reason or another, have come to believe that...

There is also the quantified bias of differences between genomes that evidences the mechanism of mutations:

[https://biologos.org/blogs/guest/testing-common-ancestry-its-all-about-the-mutations](https://biologos.org/blogs/guest/testing-common-ancestry-its-all-about-the-mutations)

We can also quantify Ka/Ks ratios in genes, if you want.

---

<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 29, 2018, 12:29am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/micro-evolution-vs-macro-evolution-explained-graphically/1334/133 "2018-08-29T00:29:59Z")

</div>

> [@T\_aquaticus](#):
>
> The pattern of conserved sequences in exons is direct evidence for natural selection. The bias towards transition mutations and CpG mutations is direct evidence of mutations. The nested hierarchy is evidence for these mechanisms changing DNA within lineages that share a common ancestor through vertical inheritance. The evidence is all there. There is nothing circular about it.

Where have you empirically tested directly for ancestry. Beyond the statement “this is evidence of”. Until you do that you are making unsupported assumptions and reasoning in a circle.

If there is evidence for A  
plus evidence for B  
plus evidence for C

That does not mean A, B, or C caused E. The cause of E must be established on its own directly.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![gbrooks9](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/gbrooks9/32/7979_2.png) [@gbrooks9](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/gbrooks9)\
**Post date:** [August 29, 2018, 2:00pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/micro-evolution-vs-macro-evolution-explained-graphically/1334/134 "2018-08-29T14:00:09Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> This is not an accurate way to look at probability. Probability is used to understand that cause of the event.

@colewd,

Many creationists abuse principles of probability to make things sound impossible.

Their approach would make the average man think there is ZERO danger from lightning… which is a fallacious form of reasoning.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![gbrooks9](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/gbrooks9/32/7979_2.png) [@gbrooks9](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/gbrooks9)\
**Post date:** [August 29, 2018, 2:02pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/micro-evolution-vs-macro-evolution-explained-graphically/1334/135 "2018-08-29T14:02:16Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> That does not mean A, B, or C caused E. The cause of E must be established on its own directly.

@colewd,

If there was a murder case that depended up in knowing if the defendant was related to the deceased… are you saying that SCI tech’s are doing everything wrong when they assess the degrees of difference in the genetics of the two people?

---

<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 29, 2018, 2:42pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/micro-evolution-vs-macro-evolution-explained-graphically/1334/136 "2018-08-29T14:42:07Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> Where have you empirically tested directly for ancestry.

Here:

> **[29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#independent_convergence)**
>
> This article directly addresses the scientific evidences in favor of macroevolutionary theory and common descent. It is specifically intended for those who are scientifically minded but, for one reason or another, have come to believe that...

---

<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 29, 2018, 4:11pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/micro-evolution-vs-macro-evolution-explained-graphically/1334/137 "2018-08-29T16:11:20Z")

</div>

> [@T\_aquaticus](#):
>
> [29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#independent_convergence)

You have not directly tested your claim for ancestry that is fine. The real issue is that your mechanism has never been demonstrated to generate the FI required for the transitions represented in the nested hierarchy.

---

<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 29, 2018, 4:38pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/micro-evolution-vs-macro-evolution-explained-graphically/1334/138 "2018-08-29T16:38:28Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> You have not directly tested your claim for ancestry that is fine.

So you are saying that I personally have to repeat every experiment done in the last 150 years?

---

<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 29, 2018, 4:46pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/micro-evolution-vs-macro-evolution-explained-graphically/1334/139 "2018-08-29T16:46:12Z")

</div>

> [@T\_aquaticus](#):
>
> So you are saying that I personally have to repeat every experiment done in the last 150 years?

No you don’t. Look at the literature in pub med and see if there is an experiment and confirmation of your specific claims. In this case you’re claiming the Darwinian mechanism or some close alternatives can create an eye.

The issue is there is no experimental data that can support your claim that is why the design argument is being discussed.

Thats also why many people believe that Behe’s irreducible complexity claim made 23 years ago is still viable.

---

<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 29, 2018, 4:57pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/micro-evolution-vs-macro-evolution-explained-graphically/1334/140 "2018-08-29T16:57:11Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> Look at the literature in pub med and see if there is an experiment and confirmation of your specific claims.

The talkorigins page has the references you need, such as this one:

[Penny et al., 1982](https://www.nature.com/articles/297197a0.pdf)

> [@colewd](#):
>
> The issue is there is no experimental data that can support your claim that is why the design argument is being discussed.

That would be a God of the Gaps argument. It is strange that you need all of this evidence for evolution, but no such evidence for ID.

[Previous page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/micro-evolution-vs-macro-evolution-explained-graphically/1334.md?page=6)

[Next page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/micro-evolution-vs-macro-evolution-explained-graphically/1334.md?page=8)