@Vincent:
What are some mechanisms of "micro-evolution"?
Update 3:@Cindi
The mechanisms, the driving forces, for creating substantial genetic change and Dr. Bob's "additional information" are all there. You can find them in a combination of retroviruses, polyploidy, mutations, transposition, and sexual recombination. I haven't even taken the formal, in-depth course yet and I am aware of these things and what they do.
Update 5:@Bob
You do realize that there is a wealth of information available in the sources of Wikipedia, including links to the actual publications themselves, right?
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2004,%20Plant%2...
Update 7:"evolution might not be fully explained yet."
Fair enough.
Update 9:@LadyGreen:
You also fail to note that there is virtually no distinction, as I have outlined here:
Macroevolution is the inevitable result of accumulated microevolution. I have provided you with mechanisms for macroevolution; where is the evidence lacking that these mechanisms could produce our modern biodiversity?
Update 11:"I'd like to know your theories of how non living materials can be used a workers for living cells."
That "theory," my dear, is called "biochemistry." It's been the subject of rigorous study for decades. Enzymes are nonliving entities, yet it was demonstrated at the turn of the 19th century that they can still be made to catalyze reactions outside of their host organisms. If you have a point to make, there's still time.
Answers & Comments
Verified answer
They are attempting to give creationism a veneer of scientific validity. It makes no sense, but then the entire creationism/intelligent design structure is a very flimsy house of cards.
since when in the evolutionists construct of creation does gravity have anything to do with 'evolution'?
@- Gravity is insignificant at the micro level. You're talking about the structures and mechanisms of the cell, as compared to planets. Unfortunately, this is not how the natural world works.
A single living cell is a incredibly complex machine, that relies on an army of machines that all perform extremely specific functions. One separates precise sections of DNA, while the other copies that section. The copy is then sent out of the nucleus and then copied again in an emulation of proteins. These proteins are then delivered into another part of the cell that then folds them into a functioning protein. That protein then passes out of the cell itself and is delivered to whatever part of the body it was intended for....
And during this time, this process is happening repeatedly within the same cell, with almost no mistakes.
This all happens in just one cell. Machines reading, copying, fixing, transporting, re-copying, manifesting representations of the copy (proteins), and then delivering that as a chemical beyond itself into a entire living system?
There is no cells in a cell. I'd like to know your theories of how non living materials can be used a workers for living cells.
btw - just one simple cell, besides the DNA, has at least 1 million working parts.
o, and they ain't cells....lol
i just dont see how these mutations can lead to a more complex and more Intelligent creature... we just dont have proof it does, sure it mutates them... but i dont think it shows any kind of significant improvement in the genome
to the man under me...
of course you broadened the subject significantly in your rebuttal when i was clearly talking about micro to macro evolution, or simple mutations to entire specie jumps...
as my understanding, this natural selection not only does not father more complex creatures, but on top of that, it reduces the information in the genome... now im sure you think im wrong, and thats probably just becuase your world views hold evolution so high that it must be right, but i dont think we got it all figured out yet, and personally i think we should have the freedom to explore the possibilities that evolution might not be fully explained yet. instead just concluding it
There is nothing dishonest about this; your question is flawed. As usual, you chose to insult the opposition rather than simply addressing the issue.
Micro evolution is changes within a species. Macro, OTOH, is not even real. Never observed, never tested, never reproduced. it fails the scientific method.
Creationists, unlike evolutionists, demand that the evidence actually supports the theory, and do not fail to report pieces of evidence, create misleading images and models that don't represent the real data, or manufacture "evidence" to prove our theory. Too bad evolutionists (a religion if ever there was one...) can't say the same.
They aren't intellectually honest with themselves. They try to modify science to fit their religion. Evolution isn't compatible with their religion, so they split it into two and attribute scientific evidence to only micro. And ignore scientific evidence for "macro" even though "macro" is just "micro" over a longer timescale.
Wow, it's funny how JAY says we don't have proof despite the overwhelming evidence for evolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_de...
yet believes in a god without ONE SHRED of evidence. Oh the hypocrisy is amazing.
Dishonestly?
I think you've got the question reversed. Adaptation (now called micro evolution to bolster support for the theory) is observable fact. Evolution (now called macro evolution) cannot be observed. It requires the addition of genetic information that results in new traits, something that we've never seen.
To combine the two (adaptation and evolution) and attempt to press them by scrutiny by giving them the same name is what's dishonest, and it stifles investigation and research, at the same time.
-----
My friend, I'm used to reading scientific articles. Wikipedia is not a credible source.
If every creationist on earth took a one semester course on Endogenous Retroviruses we would have them all weeded out within a generation or two.
EDIT: It appears Dr. Bob got his degree from the same school as Kent Hovind
I think micro-evolution is another way of saying "adaptation" which is undeniable.
Look Darwin was having a joke that just went too far.
Darwin used to believe in fairies - true story!
Because their God of the Gaps is running out of places to hide as the gaps become smaller.