Microevolution is supposed to explain how modern species evolved from a kind that was on the ark so your dog breed example does not fit. The argument is there was hyper-evolution resulting in new species after the flood to generate the number of species present today.
Joel Duff has done extensive writing on the problems with hyper-evolution at his web site. Some of these problems are actually caused by what is written in the Bible. You can view the YEC Hyper-evolution Archive on his website Naturalis Historia
Artificial selection via human-run breeding isn’t considered microevolution, even by creationists, as far as I know. It doesn’t have to do with beneficial adaptations or natural selection.
After the birth of the protestant denominations… leaving the One Roman Catholic church in th aaazzze West… did you ever wonder how the Catholics could be wrong -considering the sheer multiplicity of protestant groups who cannot agree on much at All!
This is quite parallel to the scenario you mention about all the anti-evolution groups.
The one thing you should learn when visiting here is the only real difference between what you are calling micro and macro is that macro evolution takes longer … because it is the cumulative collection of lots of little changes that leads to:
A. Speciation of two groups of what was once one population;
B. Then becoming two species with similar appearances;
C. Then becoming two or more sub-groups that have become so different that casual observers may have trouble seeing any connection.
One would think that finding strange similarities between hippo and whale ankle bones, a similar reliance on blubber tissue to make their long term presence in water more manageable, and even oddly similar genetic markers, is exactly what we would expect in a so-called MACRO evolution scenario!
@J.E.S, Biologos is not really a good place to look for arguments and evidence for evolution, as that is not its primary purpose, which is to integrate the findings of science with faith.
For most of us here, evolution is pretty much a given, not something that needs a lot a debate, though the refinement of our understanding is a continuous process.
It would be helpful to ask specific questions regarding issues you have in your studies. There are lots of resources for study of the general science out there, many online and many free or low cost. @beaglelady recently posted about an online course that looked very interesting, though at this time I have too many irons in the fire to participate in it. It may be something that you would be interested in.
I can already tell you that you won’t find it. Macroevolution is nothing more than the accumulation of microevolution. To use an analogy, the same process you used to move one step is the same process you use to walk to the store.
For example, the human and chimp genomes are separated by about 40 million microevolutionary events known as mutations. If you compare the two genomes you will find that each difference is consistent with a single microevolutionary event.
Can you cite their YEC peer reviewed publications that evidence YEC? What YEC research are they doing? What grants are they funded by?
@T_aquaticus
I have read that microevolution only allows change within a specific genetic code. Or, at least, that is what I have heard from AIG…This means that the changes would not be able to accumulate to the point that they would have to accumulate for macroevolution to occur…
That doesn’t make any sense. What is a “specific genetic code”?[quote=“J.E.S, post:174, topic:36407”]
This means that the changes would not be able to accumulate to the point that they would have to accumulate for macroevolution to occur…
[/quote]
Then they should be able to point to specific differences between species that could not be the result of accumulated microevolutionary events. I have yet to see them do that.
There has to be changes to more than one code to be able to account for all of the species that are supposed to result from microevolution. Remember, if you add up 5,280 feet you end up with a mile.
You have read “that microevolution only allows change within a specific genetic code…”?
These are the preacher’s rules… they are not biology’s rules. There is nothing about mutation that automatically stops as soon as a certain point is reached.
Genetic changes just keep happening … because no cell’s ability to replicate genetic material is perfect. It has been theorized that life forms that ever achieved perfect replication were eliminated relatively soon, because perfect replication makes it very difficult to store genetic variation - - at the ready when the environment throws some new threat at the popuation.
Yep, the Common Questions page is the best match for what you are describing. Perhaps you’re right that we need them more prominently linked from a pinned thread of some point. I will bring that idea up in our next mod meeting.
Thank you for posting all of this, Casper. A couple things on some of your claims…
You claim that AiG is prideful in saying that their interpretation of scripture is absolute truth. However, you seem to have no qualms with drastically reinterpreting large portions of the Bible. I do not believe that God using evolution and millions of years, yet saying that he created the cosmos in 6 days shows deceit that just doesn’t seem to fit with his character. Do you not consider it prideful to say that the “scientific” discoveries of mere humans are obviously more reliable than God’s own testimony of creation in the Bible? [quote=“Casper_Hesp, post:182, topic:36407”]
“Imagine you end up in Heaven and God tells you that you were mistaken. Imagine that He tells you that the Earth is old and that He created mankind through evolution. He kindly explains you that the Scriptures were meant to transmit spiritual teachings, not cosmology… In that case, would you call God a liar for having inspired Genesis 1-3?”
[/quote]
An interesting hypothetical. I would not call God a liar, and would readily admit that I had been wrong if presented with this situation. After all, I hold God in higher respect than I do the scriptures (but do not get me wrong, I hold the scriptures in very high regard as they are the word of God).
I would like to present you with this hypothetical:
"God is very displeased that you are reinterpreting his word incorrectly in Genesis, and, in a roundabout way, bringing down the credibility of all of His scriptures. And, as if this were not enough, you loudly trumpet these views, leading others astray into myths…What do you think of these implications of your worldview as expressed in this hypothetical? (“hypothetical is written in this way so as to remind you that I am not at all condemning anyone or anything…yet. As I’ve said before, I have problems with the BioLogos view, but I still realize the possibility that _I _ am wrong).”
Obviously, I am not that man.
You have not given any areas where their claims are faulty (other than astrophysics, which was the one that I was already award of). If you can provide me with another topic (preferably within the realms of Evolution/Biology or Paleontology/Geology), I will gladly consider using some of my valuable time in researching it.
Since (as I gather from your post) AiG people are not considered (by you) to be experts or real scientists, I shall consult the expert scientists at CMI and ICR in my (potential) critique of them. I assume they would fall into your category of “actual scientists.”
@Casper_Hesp, I am interested in hearing your thoughts about all of this!
(P.S: I know that the ce-debate is a fairly controversial topic, and tensions can heat fast when discussing it (online formats do not help at all, and, frankly, make the discussion even more heated as a hostile tone can be projected onto the comments. This post script is to say that I do not mean the tone of my comments to be hostile or combatant, these are just sincere questions and comments (and the occasional expression of slight annoyance ;)) that I have on this issue. Thank you for your understanding. One more thing:
EC (in a broad sense) is now being discussed on this website, if you wish to see what others are saying about it or weigh in. Thanks!)
I think he’s saying that discoveries of what God has written in nature are more reliable than YOUR MINORITY INTERPRETATION of poetry about creation in the Bible.
You’re conflating your mere interpretation with God’s testimony. That’s awfully prideful, wouldn’t you say?
I was thinking along the same lines. Let’s assume evolution, geology, astronomy and so forth are off the table, just as they were to the original writer and audience.
When you read Genesis, would you think it was a textbook of natural Earth science, or would you find it a revelation about the nature of God, and his relationship to humanity?
Would you put forth your interpretation as being the word of God?