How can one believe this? They are the exact same thing, except macro is over a longer timespan. Example:

Theoretically, say we take your dad, then take your grandpa, then take your grandpa's dad. We continue this for a long time. Eventually, we'll get to a fish-like creature. It will take a very very long time though. So say we have this line, and it is so long it goes around the world many many many times. When you pick any two creatures next to each other in the line, they will look indistinguishable to the naked eye.

Micro evolution is taking one creature and comparing it to another creature, say, 30 generations away. Macroevolution is taking one creature and comparing it to another creature, say 100,000,000 generations away.

They are the exact same thing (micro and macro evolution), produced by the exact same process only the time span is different. How can you believe in micro but not macro?

Also, how do you explain the fact that macro evolution has been observed in the lab and in nature? It only took 30 generations of drosophila melanogaster breeding to create two reproductively isolated species (ie, turn one species into two species).

There is no real distinction between "micro" and "macro" by actual scientists. The nomenclature was invented by an entomologist in the early 20th century (and was not a part of Darwinian theory), but has since been co-opted almost exclusively by creationists (at the very latest after the discovery of DNA's structure) who pretend that they are different things in order to undermine evolutionary theory as a whole.

"Macro" evolution simply means speciation, without which any claims of "micro" evolution are silly. Modern Evolutionary synthesis started about 1936, though, after which the distinction is erroneous.

While macroevolution originally meant speciation, it has been changed to mean either genus-iation or speciation that creates 2 species that look physically more dissimilar to the naked eye. It's the only way for creationists to hold onto the concept.

reference please.

typically in a lab we keep strains isolated from one another way more than 30 generations. mate them, they'll still generate fertile offspring.

People who believe in micro-evolution but don't believe in macro-evolution are either too stupid or are in denial because it would undermine everything about their religion.

A lot of people don't understand macro-evolution because it's something that's hard for them to picture. Well, this should help:

Because you say so? Citation of observational evidence that establishes this equivalence, please.

Micro is observation-based, whereas macro is cool story-based.

Reproductive isolation is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition of the sort of macro-evolution Darwinism claims as the cause of the diversity of species. What believers in macro-evolution have to demonstrate is a process that both 1) produces reproductive isolation (some processes do this) and 2) has the property of extendibility such that it can keep going (without, say, driving the population to extinction) to the point of producing a new species as taxonomically distinct from the original as any trunk and branch on these fictitious evolutionary trees they keep showing us. This, in common with many of the foundational ideas of the macro-evolution fairytale, has never been scientifically demonstrated, merely asserted.

You seem so logical in almost everything else you talk about and then we we discuss evolution you sound like ray comfort.

I cannot understand the micro/macro denial thing at all. Science confuses a lot of people, not only theists if you just skim through the SMP forum a little so I guess it is not too surprising. I have known atheists who are into crystals and garbade like that which really is the same thing.

That said, accepting evolution does not really undermine religion.

I agree with this, depending on which religion, and your interpretation of that religion. A literal Adam and Eve, for example, is not compatible with Evolution. But that's not really the point. So far as I know, the only people who reject Evolution are doing so on a religious basis.

I have to agree.

I disagree. The way creationists see it, micro is basically selection for existing traits within a population. Macro is the of the development of non-trivial new traits through random mutation.

I don't think their distinction between the two is unreasonable - they have different causative mechanisms (think Mendelian genetics vs "positive" mutations), and highly different levels of direct evidence - micro is readily observed, macro hasn't been directly observed, and has to be inferred from the overwhelming evidence from phylogeny, fossils, geology, morphology and genetic drift.

There are plenty of very intelligent creationists and they make valid points. Their errors aren't as coarse as you're making them out to be, and treating their errors as coarse when they are not merely reinforces their belief that you don't get it.

I think the distinction is a bit more coarse than you're suggesting. Especially with the likes of Hovind and his 'can they bring forth' or Comfort/Cameron and the crocaduck. These hucksters are either willfully ignorant, incapable, or (as I suspect) they damn well know better and are in it for the money.

It has been explained over and over again, but evolution denying creationist just won't listen.

You have to be willfully ignorant to hold that position.

Try educating your self, because it's embarrassing how little you actually know:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

Now go read, and use your brain for what it's meant to do: actually understand reality, not actively deny it. Sorry pal, Jokers don't play.

OP is correct. Creationists pretend that there is a magical undiscovered mechanism which prevents 'micro' evolution from becoming 'macro' evolution. Presumably God floats around on a cloud ensuring that no species crosses this invisible line.

nevermind the reference (i think). i found it. not quite what i thought u meant, which led me to my last post above. i though u meant that 30 generations of reproductive isolation often leads to speciation rather than creation of 2 reproductive isolated populations (without physical barriers) inside of 30 generations.

still should make for an interesting read

What about nylon-eating bacteria? Do creationists see that as macroevolution, or do they lie and say it was the selection for pre-existing traits?

When I saw this comment I got interested because I have been involved in using forced evolution to induce bacteria to produce novel enzymes. For the record, I am a scientist and I completely accept the scientific theory of evolution. That said, having been involved in this kind of research it is pretty amazing the kinds of enzymes that can arise out of one or two mutations. Concerning nylonase, the current thinking is that it arose out of a single mutation event. I did not know that when I read your comment but suspected that it might be true based on past experience. I dug a little and found that it is probably a one step modification of a pre-existing enzyme.

1) I did realize later while thinking about my post that I really wasn't fair with the options at the end. Too late to fix it, though.

2) Can you point us towards this evidence?

3) Does this really qualify as selection for a pre-existing trait?

1) No problem.

2)Some of the articles are clearly propaganda and others are pretty technical. This one seemed pretty good though:

http://www.pnas.org/content/81/8/2421.long

3) I don't know. It depends on the definition. Again, I have no argument with macro-evolution and consider the entire debate a waste of time. I only jumped in because I have seen some pretty simple genetic shifts produce amazing enzyme transformations and was curious if that might be the case here.

Thanks. I realize this paper was referenced in the wiki article (at least the author is): Nylon-eating bacteria

"This discovery led geneticist Susumu Ohno to speculate that the gene for one of the enzymes, 6-aminohexanoic acid hydrolase, had come about from the combination of a gene duplication event with a frame shift mutation. [2] Ohno suggested that many unique new genes have evolved this way.

A 2007 paper that described a series of studies by a team led by Seiji Negoro of the University of Hyogo, Japan, suggested that in fact no frameshift mutation was involved in the evolution of the 6-aminohexanoic acid hydrolase."

So I think it's unclear at the least. Unless there actually is a scientific consensus on this, but I wouldn't know where to find that except on wiki.

I would agree that it is arguable.

I did look for the 2007 Negoro paper but could only read the abstract without paying $30 so I could not see his arguments in detail. I would note that his work was crystallographic which means he is investigating the enzyme structure and inferring the genetic underpinnings. I have less confidence in that then direct genomic work. On the other hand, the 2006 paper by Okamura, et.al. was genomic work that showed that the frameshift postulated by Ohno did occur frequently although it does not appear that they looked at this specific case.

Based on what I could see and some past experience, I would bet on the frameshift model, but it is not a closed deal. Maybe off topic, I am really addressing an SMP type issue, not an RGT issue. I am fine with evolution as I have already said.

work at a university, fortunately most research universitys subscribe to jmb.

looking at the paper. it appears that their only needs to be a 2 amino acid substitutions (an H -> and G->D) from the inactive protein to get the full catalytic activity of the active one. quick look at a codon table, says it should take at least 3 DNA mutations.

grand scheme of things, i would say 3 DNA mutations (in which 2 of them are on adjacent bases) is still actually a relatively simple event. the exact mechanisms are different, but i think they both agree that it's still a small number of events

So then, back in the context of this thread, could you call that a selection of a pre-existing trait?

It is a scientifically valid hypothesis that microevolution exists but simply does not result in macroscale differences. Saying that the proposed mechanism of both is the same does not prove that the mechanism does indeed result in macro scale changes. That hypothesis needs to be tested and proven. Now I think their is an overwhelming body of evidence to confirm that it does indeed occur, but we shouldn't say it is just trivial.

Don't engage Concerto. He comes in with his cool story crap, gets backed into a corner, disappears. Another month will go by, rinse and repeat. You're just feeding the troll at this point.