PDA

View Full Version : Micro-evolution



Olddad
Oct 2nd 2008, 02:06 AM
I noticed a thread that mentioned the term "micro-evolution". I understand that this is necessary to account for the differences between human groups. Here are some differences in the human family.


skin colour (in hot climates it is an advantage to have dark skin, whereas in cold and cloudy climates the reverse is true.
Ability to digest milk as adults. This gene seems to be most prevalent in those communities that use a lot of dairy foods.
Thassalemia. This gene is a great defect where there is no malaria. However, in areas where there is a lot of malaria, this gene has the advantage of conferring immunity to this dangerous disease.


How do people on this board account for these differences if it is not by some form of micro-evolution?

Tanya~
Oct 2nd 2008, 02:12 AM
Creationists have no problem with "micro-evolution." It's just another term for adaptation. Differences in skin color don't progress to some other different species.

Moxie
Oct 2nd 2008, 02:42 AM
Greetings,

I've not studied evolution to any great extent, other than a couple of science courses in college. My answer to you will not be scientific, but rather an answer of faith. I believe God, being God can do anything He wants. The Bible tells us (I do believe it is the inspired word of God) that he knits us while in the womb. If so, then why can't He add the genes needed for the above things you mentioned?

I wonder, are you searching for God? If so, I would challenge you to ask Him to open your eyes and your heart to Him and only Him.

Moxie

MrAnteater
Oct 2nd 2008, 02:53 AM
Dominate genetic traits can be manipulated (micro evolution) in a species causing physical differences. Darwin's theory is valid to explain these differences and how they change over generations. This accounts for the various physical differences in human beings. All humans have melan, for example, and based on your environmental conditions your genes will determine if the pigment is white (Caucasian) or dark (Africans) or in between (Asian).

The problem with evolution theory (Macro evolution) is the DNA of a species cannot spontaneously become more complex no matter how many generations or length of time given, either naturally in the environment or artificially in the lab. A good study I read was done on e-coli bacteria which can reproduce in less than 20 minutes in the lab. After millions of generations of reproduction, the scientists could not get the DNA to change even with extreme environmental manipulation. If the species is pushed so far where the biologic functions can no longer happen, it will die. It can't evolve. Evolution cannot be proved in the lab no matter how hard scientists try!

You can always challenge an evolutionist by asking them to give a scientifically documented case of DNA spontaneously becoming more complex which is a requirement for evolution to be true. It is scientifically impossible and science cannot make evolution happen.

tango
Oct 2nd 2008, 06:26 AM
I noticed a thread that mentioned the term "micro-evolution". I understand that this is necessary to account for the differences between human groups. Here are some differences in the human family.


skin colour (in hot climates it is an advantage to have dark skin, whereas in cold and cloudy climates the reverse is true.
Ability to digest milk as adults. This gene seems to be most prevalent in those communities that use a lot of dairy foods.
Thassalemia. This gene is a great defect where there is no malaria. However, in areas where there is a lot of malaria, this gene has the advantage of conferring immunity to this dangerous disease.


How do people on this board account for these differences if it is not by some form of micro-evolution?

Micro-evolution isn't an issue, you can demonstrate it in a laboratory if you've got the right equipment. I personally wrote a piece of software some 20-odd years ago that demonstrated micro-evolution worked.

Macro-evolution is what we have an issue with, the idea that one species can spontaneously evolve into a different species. If you can demonstrate macro-evolution in a lab don't post the results here, send them to the Nobel Prize committee.

Olddad
Oct 2nd 2008, 10:59 AM
Thank you all for your comments. I read them with interest.

moonglow
Oct 3rd 2008, 01:41 PM
I noticed a thread that mentioned the term "micro-evolution". I understand that this is necessary to account for the differences between human groups. Here are some differences in the human family.


skin colour (in hot climates it is an advantage to have dark skin, whereas in cold and cloudy climates the reverse is true.
Ability to digest milk as adults. This gene seems to be most prevalent in those communities that use a lot of dairy foods.
Thassalemia. This gene is a great defect where there is no malaria. However, in areas where there is a lot of malaria, this gene has the advantage of conferring immunity to this dangerous disease.


How do people on this board account for these differences if it is not by some form of micro-evolution?

I must be missing a gene as I can't drink milk...:rolleyes: Alot of adults can't because it upsets our stomachs. (of course as a baby it made me sick too) I truly wish everything wasn't covered with cheese!! :B They need to make cheeseless pizza...lol...fake cheese ..something! I read a study once where in countries they don't drink milk or have alot of milk products, they have a lot lower incidences of breast cancer....:hmm: Makes you wonder uh?

Anyway sorry I am no help on answering you question right now...too tired! Maybe I will try later after I get some sleep!

God bless

dljc
Oct 3rd 2008, 03:04 PM
I noticed a thread that mentioned the term "micro-evolution". I understand that this is necessary to account for the differences between human groups. Here are some differences in the human family.


skin colour (in hot climates it is an advantage to have dark skin, whereas in cold and cloudy climates the reverse is true.
Ability to digest milk as adults. This gene seems to be most prevalent in those communities that use a lot of dairy foods.
Thassalemia. This gene is a great defect where there is no malaria. However, in areas where there is a lot of malaria, this gene has the advantage of conferring immunity to this dangerous disease.


How do people on this board account for these differences if it is not by some form of micro-evolution?Hi Olddad,

I was watching a program on PBS the other night called "Rise of the Dog". It was a very interesting documentary on how the dog derived from the wolf. The interesting part of the show for me was where in Russia some scientist (can't remember his name), had discovered a "quantum leap" (if you will) in evolution.

It had to do with the fight or flight zone wild animals have concerning humans. This scientist took some of the local foxes and did a study on them, the ones that had a tolerance for humans (shorter fight/flight zone) were separated from the ones that kept their distance from humans. The more "tame" foxes were then bred and thus resulted in more of "pet" foxes that were allowed to roam a little more freely than the others. They even had a scene where a child was petting one of the foxes and the fox gave the appearance of that of a pet dog. (Meaning it tolerated the attention of humans).

What's my point? They were still foxes. They did not evolve into dogs, they just took on a tamer more tolerant trust of humans. The bottom line is they remained a fox.

RoadWarrior
Oct 4th 2008, 03:36 PM
My husband and I recently did some photography at a wild game "ranch", where animals have become accustomed to being handled, from early in their lives. Thus, the trainer could get them to pose or play in ways that we could get wonderful pictures.

One of the comments we came away with was this: A wolf with his tongue hanging out, is just a dog.

The show that dljc mentioned is one I have seen also. What is amazing is how some of the physical characteristics of the animals change in the next generations. The animals adapt to their environment, to the things that are happening to them.

We do the same thing. Humans have adapted from being hunters, nomads following the animals/herding the animals, to farmers, to city-dwellers, etc. What is next? Yet, we are still humans.

Americans today are generally taller overall than the immigrants who first came to this country. Years ago I read that it is believed our diet had much to do with that change. But while we are taller, and now fatter, we are still humans. We still have the basic body shape: two legs, two arms, 1 head, opposable thumbs, etc. And we still have the most marvelous organ of all, a wonderful brain!

Olddad
Oct 5th 2008, 01:30 AM
As a point of information, dogs and wolves can interbreed. See http://english.pravda.ru/society/stories/25-04-2006/79498-wolf-0

Humans and animals can adapt to quite different environments. However, genetic variation, such as in the ability to digest milk as an adult, is quite different, and is a genetically inherited characteristic.

Tanya~
Oct 5th 2008, 02:08 AM
Micro-evolution is more about either the shuffling around of already existing information, or the loss of existing information, rather than any new information being added that previously didn't exist.

Some types of bacteria are known to have developed a resistance to antibiotics, but it has not been due to the bacteria evolving new DNA. This article (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i1/superbugs.asp) about so-called 'superbugs' explains this further.

dljc
Oct 6th 2008, 02:27 PM
As a point of information, dogs and wolves can interbreed. See http://english.pravda.ru/society/stories/25-04-2006/79498-wolf-0Hey Olddad,

That's an interesting article thanks! Although, it looks as though in man's efforts build a better mouse trap, all he's done is create a coward dog.


Another unique experiment on interbreeding the jackal and Eskimo dogs (husky) was conducted in Russia. The author of the experiment Vyacheslav Klimov called the new breed of puppies “shakolaika”. The small dogs had exceptional nose and were used for detecting drugs and explosive at airports. Unfortunately, the researcher failed to fight the natural cautiousness of jackals and the new breed of shakolaika turned out to be awfully cowardly. The poor dogs got scared to death just because of a man’s sudden movement or when they saw an unknown thing. That was the reason why the police could not employ the new dog breed in their work.When will we learn. :cry: