Evolution is quicker than they thought

[xoxoxoBruce]

I would be able to find one because I don't know jack shit about this stuff. I just wonder how they determine what causes mutations.

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

No, what happens is there is already genetic diversity and natural selection will take its course (assuming we leave out the four other variables for microevolution).

For viruses for example, lets assume that there are four different types of virus A: AA, AB, AC, and AD. Lets say there are 1,000 virus strains and 950 are AA, 20 are AB, 20 are AC, and 10 are AD. When we add an antibody to kill the virus, we find out that the type AB is already immune to the antibody. So after we add the antibody, the number of virus strains go down from 1,000 of 4 different kinds to 20 just AB making it seem like the virus is gone but then the AB virus will grow again and in a week or so we will have 950 AB viruses, 20 AA, 20, AE, and 10 AF. We add the antibody again but since AB is immune to it, 950 virus strains will remain and it will seem that the virus has mutated in response to the antibody when in reality, the conditions changed and the virus strains that were already immune to the antibody were the only ones that survived (microevolution).

Mutations are random, natural section is not.

Dude, you need to read a lot more about viruses and how they adapt and how we adapt to them.
Every flu you have can produce 1000 strains of itself just within you. Some can do it every time it reproduces in each cell.
Antigen shift is what you are talking about and it happens all the time and we actually, and other species, adapt to it all the time.
There is not ONE recognized biologist that uses the term macro or micro evolution.
Evolution is evolution.
A mutation that is adopted by a species is natural selection.

There are many adaptations that are in response to threats, environmental, predatory, etc.... making that specific to DNA is a very odd way of looking at it, but I guess you could.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Wait a minute, we killed the AA viruses off, where did the 20 AAs come from?

It was just an example. The virus may change back to AA. It doesn't really mean anything.

I would be able to find one because I don't know jack shit about this stuff. I just wonder how they determine what causes mutations.

A mutation is just a mistake. Pretend that you have to rewrite an entire book word of word without being able to correct your mistakes. You will most likely have a type-o here and there and that would be a mutation in biology sense. When the DNA is being copied, there will be miscopy and that will be a mutation.

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Dude, you need to read a lot more about viruses and how they adapt and how we adapt to them.

It was a simplified example on how natural selection works.

There is not ONE recognized biologist that uses the term macro or micro evolution.
Evolution is evolution.

What is the catch with that? I took a Biology course this year and both my professors used micro and macro evolution. When you understand what evolution is then the both micro and macro are not needed but you have to include them when you are explaining how evolution works.

Let me clarify, no evolutionary biologist. It's what we were discussing.
Was it a Christian college?
I had an English teacher teach the Divine Comedy in prose... there are fools in every profession.

[piercehawkeye45]

No, University of Minnesota.

Can you give a source for that because I have never heard that before?

Source of what?
Are you asking me to show a negative?

[piercehawkeye45]

Ok, I see where you get that from since a lot of microevolutions make up a macroevolution so they are one in the same but they are usually taught that there is a difference for simplicity reasons.

Edit- Something like this.

That was funny.
Once something evolves it evolves, it is not like the process is going to revert or the line is not going to be changed by it forever.
It is permanently changed, evolved, by it.
Microevolution is just a way for creationists to deal with the overwhelming evidence for evolution.
Dogs instead of wolves? "Oh, they changed after the flood... MICROevolution, but it's not REAL evolution".
Joke.
Evolutionary theory is so far removed from Darwin's theories the dead-giveaway for someone just trying to make a point instead of actually discussing current theory is bringing-up that name.

[piercehawkeye45]

Microevolution is usually the term for short term evolution, which is proven, and macroevolution is the long term use, which is not.

Microevolution- the change of one trait
Macroevolution- the change of enough traits where two once the same species can not mate and produce healthy children with eachother.

I agree that micro and macro evolution are essentially the same thing but the definitions are there to describe the time involved so it is easier to grasp as a concept since you can not make a new species when a change of one trait occurs.

macroevolution is the long term use, which is not.

This conversation is over.

[piercehawkeye45]

Get that stick out of your ass rkzenrage.

Science is built on fact, we do not have proof that macroevolution exists even though it is logical that it should. We can not say as fact that they are the same even though we know they are because we haven't proven it yet. If you don't have proof, it can not be a fact, very simple concept. We then split it up to show that parts of evolution are fact while others logically should be fact even though it hasn't been proven yet.

It is just like long and short distance running, is there a difference? No, they are both running. We distinguish the two for simplicity reasons.

We need it for this reason:
"I just ran 100 meters"
"Can you run 1 million meters?"
"Ughh....if given enough time I'm sure I could"
"How do you know if you've never done it""
"Because if I can run 100 meters so I can logically run 1 million meters since they are the same thing but just a longer distance"
"Do you know for a fact?"
"No, because I've never done it"

Science can not allow us to say it is fact that I can run 1 million meters until I have actually done it. We have not seen macroevolution so we can not say it is a fact.

No stick, just no point.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Macroevolution- the change of enough traits where two once the same species can not mate and produce healthy children with eachother.

Then Macro might have happened in a short time span, say one scientists career span, it's just that nobody has observed/documented it.... yet.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Macroevolution- the change of enough traits where two once the same species can not mate and produce healthy children with eachother.

That's called speciation, and it most certainly has been observed and recorded by science.

[Happy Monkey]

The creationist definition for macroevoution is "whatever hasn't been directly observed yet". So, it is currently one step past speciation, at what they call "kinds". So a wolf can become a dog, but that doesn't mean it's related to cats, because they're different "kinds". When a change of that magnitude is experimentally demonstrated, they'll move on to saying that OK, maybe mammals, but there's no relationship to reptiles. There will always be a god of the gaps.