Microevolution vs. Macroevolution

[Student Nurse]

Last semester I took Microbiology. Before then I was a Christian and believed in creation, but what I studied and what I saw undoubtedly proved evolution - hence the "switchover" or "atheistic conversion" or whatever you want to call it.

I hear a lot of Christians say "the microbiological world proves microevolution" (i.e. evolution on the small scale such as bacteria adapting to new hosts/environments and incorporating plasmids into their DNA in order to become resistant to antibiotics), "but that doesn't prove macroevolution" (ie human evolution)

If this isn't true, then what does it prove to you? How can something be true on the small scale and not on the large? (give examples please)

[Furrowed Brow]

Hi Osteng

You wrote

Suppose a blind man tries to back a car out of a garage and into the road. He backs up, and when he senses the car is off the driveway, he pulls forward and tries again. Eventually he pulls out of the driveway and into the road. This would be micro-driving. Now, a large amount of time passes. He is no longer at his original location in New York, but is in the same car in Seattle. We did not witness him driving the car from New York to Seattle. What can we conclude? Well, he micro-drived out of his driveway, so he must've macro-drived across the country. That is one possibility. Another is perhaps someone else drove him there. Or maybe he had the car transported in a moving truck while he just sat in it.

The key difference is, was there another person involved? If we assume no other person was involved, the only possibility is that he macro-drove. But, if we don't assume that, then there are many other possibilities.

Ok. Take as many blind men as it's going to take, allow a billions years or so. You are going to get a giant bunch of road fatalities, but maybe just maybe after a billion years of trying you are going to find a blind man in Seattle who will tell you he drove all the way from New York himself.

Admittedly as an evolutionist I feel compelled to change the scenario. And I need to change it some more. Take an unlimited number of blind men. Find one who learns how to get to the end of the road, and manages not to crash by listening out for other motorists. Duplicate him as many times as it takes.

When the next blind man learns how to to turn right at the end of the road, duplicate him, and so on.

All the time this goes on your still going to get road crashes, but all the time the blind men steadily make their way to seattle. After a billion years I'm going to put money on their being a blind man in seattle who will tell you he drove all the way from New York by himself.

[Curious]

Ok. Take as many blind men as it's going to take, allow a billions years or so. You are going to get a giant bunch of road fatalities, but maybe just maybe after a billion years of trying you are going to find a blind man in Seattle who will tell you he drove all the way from New York himself.

Admittedly as an evolutionist I feel compelled to change the scenario. And I need to change it some more. Take an unlimited number of blind men. Find one who learns how to get to the end of the road, and manages not to crash by listening out for other motorists. Duplicate him as many times as it takes.

When the next blind man learns how to to turn right at the end of the road, duplicate him, and so on.

All the time this goes on your still going to get road crashes, but all the time the blind men steadily make their way to seattle. After a billion years I'm going to put money on their being a blind man in seattle who will tell you he drove all the way from New York by himself.

I would think that the roads would become far to congested with wrecks for any blind man to make it to Seattle. This scenario could work given infinite opportunity and infinite time (and sufficiently wide roads!). This is the argument used for evolution. Neither opportunity or time are infinite though. Given infinite opportunity and time, it would be theoretically possible for falling atoms to become large molecules of DNA. Given enough time ANYTHING is theoretically possible. A model that requires an infinite number of chances over an eternity of time to reach fruition is no better than any other model we could think up.
For the sake of argument let's say that the blind man did reach Seattle. Does this mean that eventually a blind man could eventually reach the moon using the same mechanism? Obviously not, there are still limitations to the direction the driver can take.

[QED]

I would think that the roads would become far to congested with wrecks for any blind man to make it to Seattle. This scenario could work given infinite opportunity and infinite time (and sufficiently wide roads!). This is the argument used for evolution. Neither opportunity or time are infinite though. Given infinite opportunity and time, it would be theoretically possible for falling atoms to become large molecules of DNA. Given enough time ANYTHING is theoretically possible. A model that requires an infinite number of chances over an eternity of time to reach fruition is no better than any other model we could think up.

Who says an actual infinity is required? That would seem to provide too much in the way of "things that could possibly exist". We're only asking for a infinitesimal subset (i.e. living things on planet Earth) therefore it would seem that only a finite state-space is required after all. And let's not forget the proposed mechanism (natural selection) which cuts out the majority of this combinatorial space anyway.

For the sake of argument let's say that the blind man did reach Seattle. Does this mean that eventually a blind man could eventually reach the moon using the same mechanism? Obviously not, there are still limitations to the direction the driver can take.

Excellent point. Now we can understand a principle by which the process is bounded. What I keep asking for is a similar principle which we could see imposing a boundary on self-organization. Until we come up with something like that, then we're still on the road network.

[Furrowed Brow]

Ok. Take as many blind men as it's going to take, allow a billions years or so. You are going to get a giant bunch of road fatalities, but maybe just maybe after a billion years of trying you are going to find a blind man in Seattle who will tell you he drove all the way from New York himself.

Admittedly as an evolutionist I feel compelled to change the scenario. And I need to change it some more. Take an unlimited number of blind men. Find one who learns how to get to the end of the road, and manages not to crash by listening out for other motorists. Duplicate him as many times as it takes.

When the next blind man learns how to to turn right at the end of the road, duplicate him, and so on.

All the time this goes on your still going to get road crashes, but all the time the blind men steadily make their way to seattle. After a billion years I'm going to put money on their being a blind man in seattle who will tell you he drove all the way from New York by himself.

I would think that the roads would become far to congested with wrecks for any blind man to make it to Seattle. This scenario could work given infinite opportunity and infinite time (and sufficiently wide roads!). This is the argument used for evolution. Neither opportunity or time are infinite though. Given infinite opportunity and time, it would be theoretically possible for falling atoms to become large molecules of DNA. Given enough time ANYTHING is theoretically possible. A model that requires an infinite number of chances over an eternity of time to reach fruition is no better than any other model we could think up.
For the sake of argument let's say that the blind man did reach Seattle. Does this mean that eventually a blind man could eventually reach the moon using the same mechanism? Obviously not, there are still limitations to the direction the driver can take.

Hi Curious,

QED has made the point I would have done if I got there first. Some anti evolutionist arguments throw around very big numbers to show the improbability of evolution. The time period we are talking about is bounded by an approximate maximum figure of 4 billion years.

And the point about the blind man analogy is, incremental developments can get you to Seattle in a finite amount of time, if Seattle is where you are trying to get to.

Actual I'd like to develope the analogy some more. So far the blind man is always going to Seattle. But evolution is not like that either. It is more like taking the blind man who learns to turn right at the end of the road, and the one who learns to turn left and duplicating both, and then again when the ends of those roads are met, the left and right turners are duplicated, and so on. Overtime blind drivers slowly make their way all over America. After a billion years you stand a fair chance of finding a blind driver in most American cities. But maybe not all, there will be some pathways the blind drivers have not yet learnt, there will be some dead ends, and some areas where the terrain is too difficult to negotiate. Say a bridge is out and the blind drivers just keep driving head first into the river. So there will be some real physical blocks on some evolution roads.

So I take your point that there will be some physical obstacles evolution cannot overcome. And as far as we can tell evolution has never taken place on the moon.

And that perhaps is the point, given finite time and finite resources evolution will get to where it gets. Some places it will miss out on because it has not yet explored all possible pathways, and some places will be beyond its reach - like the moon.

However if blind men reach some percentage of American cites and not Seattle, then one cannot say Ah, why has evolutionary process failed to get just there! Look at all the places the blind men did get to. Conversely if the blind man does get to Seattle one cannot say look at how improbable that is, that a blind man should get to Seattle specifically.

Given enough time ANYTHING is theoretically possible.

Well yes. But as just said evolution has to posit a time of less than approximately 4 billions years. So if you think anything is possible in that finite time frame, then why not evolution?

So is 4 billions years long enough? You might want to review the Stepping Stone argument and see how you feel about that. And then my criticism of its math.

FB

PS these blind men are driving special biodegradable cars, so the wrecks quickly rot way.

[Goat]

Ok. Take as many blind men as it's going to take, allow a billions years or so. You are going to get a giant bunch of road fatalities, but maybe just maybe after a billion years of trying you are going to find a blind man in Seattle who will tell you he drove all the way from New York himself.

Admittedly as an evolutionist I feel compelled to change the scenario. And I need to change it some more. Take an unlimited number of blind men. Find one who learns how to get to the end of the road, and manages not to crash by listening out for other motorists. Duplicate him as many times as it takes.

When the next blind man learns how to to turn right at the end of the road, duplicate him, and so on.

All the time this goes on your still going to get road crashes, but all the time the blind men steadily make their way to seattle. After a billion years I'm going to put money on their being a blind man in seattle who will tell you he drove all the way from New York by himself.

I would think that the roads would become far to congested with wrecks for any blind man to make it to Seattle. This scenario could work given infinite opportunity and infinite time (and sufficiently wide roads!). This is the argument used for evolution. Neither opportunity or time are infinite though. Given infinite opportunity and time, it would be theoretically possible for falling atoms to become large molecules of DNA. Given enough time ANYTHING is theoretically possible. A model that requires an infinite number of chances over an eternity of time to reach fruition is no better than any other model we could think up.
For the sake of argument let's say that the blind man did reach Seattle. Does this mean that eventually a blind man could eventually reach the moon using the same mechanism? Obviously not, there are still limitations to the direction the driver can take.

Hi Curious,

QED has made the point I would have done if I got there first. Some anti evolutionist arguments throw around very big numbers to show the improbability of evolution. The time period we are talking about is bounded by an approximate maximum figure of 4 billion years.

And the point about the blind man analogy is, incremental developments can get you to Seattle in a finite amount of time, if Seattle is where you are trying to get to.

Actual I'd like to develope the analogy some more. So far the blind man is always going to Seattle. But evolution is not like that either. It is more like taking the blind man who learns to turn right at the end of the road, and the one who learns to turn left and duplicating both, and then again when the ends of those roads are met, the left and right turners are duplicated, and so on. Overtime blind drivers slowly make their way all over America. After a billion years you stand a fair chance of finding a blind driver in most American cities. But maybe not all, there will be some pathways the blind drivers have not yet learnt, there will be some dead ends, and some areas where the terrain is too difficult to negotiate. Say a bridge is out and the blind drivers just keep driving head first into the river. So there will be some real physical blocks on some evolution roads.

So I take your point that there will be some physical obstacles evolution cannot overcome. And as far as we can tell evolution has never taken place on the moon.

And that perhaps is the point, given finite time and finite resources evolution will get to where it gets. Some places it will miss out on because it has not yet explored all possible pathways, and some places will be beyond its reach - like the moon.

However if blind men reach some percentage of American cites and not Seattle, then one cannot say Ah, why has evolutionary process failed to get just there! Look at all the places the blind men did get to. Conversely if the blind man does get to Seattle one cannot say look at how improbable that is, that a blind man should get to Seattle specifically.

Given enough time ANYTHING is theoretically possible.

Well yes. But as just said evolution has to posit a time of less than approximately 4 billions years. So if you think anything is possible in that finite time frame, then why not evolution?

So is 4 billions years long enough? You might want to review the Stepping Stone argument and see how you feel about that. And then my criticism of its math.

FB

PS these blind men are driving special biodegradable cars, so the wrecks quickly rot way.

I don't think the analogy of the blind men is apt, since evolution is incremental, and starting from the beginging with someone traveling is not.

A more apt example would be penny that can flip 1024 times heads in a row. You start off with 2*1024 number of pennies, toss all of them, and then take all the heads. From a probablistic point of view, you should have 2*1023 numbers of coinsz left. Repeat. half the coins should be heads again. It should take 1024 coin tosses to get to a single coin.. and that particular coin flipped heads 1024 times in a row!

[otseng]

The time period we are talking about is bounded by an approximate maximum figure of 4 billion years.

Actually, as evidenced by the Cambrian Explosion, it's bounded on the order of 50 million years.

So far the blind man is always going to Seattle. But evolution is not like that either.

True. The blind man does not know in advance that he's going to any particular city. But, he does have to end up in a city. That is, evolution has to produce something that is viable. If he runs out of gas in the middle of nowhere, he's a dead man.

So is 4 billions years long enough? You might want to review the Stepping Stone argument and see how you feel about that. And then my criticism of its math.

It's not that it's not long enough. But, the question is can it be explained within 50 million years?

[Furrowed Brow]

Ok. Take as many blind men as it's going to take, allow a billions years or so. You are going to get a giant bunch of road fatalities, but maybe just maybe after a billion years of trying you are going to find a blind man in Seattle who will tell you he drove all the way from New York himself.

Admittedly as an evolutionist I feel compelled to change the scenario. And I need to change it some more. Take an unlimited number of blind men. Find one who learns how to get to the end of the road, and manages not to crash by listening out for other motorists. Duplicate him as many times as it takes.

When the next blind man learns how to to turn right at the end of the road, duplicate him, and so on.

All the time this goes on your still going to get road crashes, but all the time the blind men steadily make their way to seattle. After a billion years I'm going to put money on their being a blind man in seattle who will tell you he drove all the way from New York by himself.

I would think that the roads would become far to congested with wrecks for any blind man to make it to Seattle. This scenario could work given infinite opportunity and infinite time (and sufficiently wide roads!). This is the argument used for evolution. Neither opportunity or time are infinite though. Given infinite opportunity and time, it would be theoretically possible for falling atoms to become large molecules of DNA. Given enough time ANYTHING is theoretically possible. A model that requires an infinite number of chances over an eternity of time to reach fruition is no better than any other model we could think up.
For the sake of argument let's say that the blind man did reach Seattle. Does this mean that eventually a blind man could eventually reach the moon using the same mechanism? Obviously not, there are still limitations to the direction the driver can take.

Hi Curious,

QED has made the point I would have done if I got there first. Some anti evolutionist arguments throw around very big numbers to show the improbability of evolution. The time period we are talking about is bounded by an approximate maximum figure of 4 billion years.

And the point about the blind man analogy is, incremental developments can get you to Seattle in a finite amount of time, if Seattle is where you are trying to get to.

Actual I'd like to develope the analogy some more. So far the blind man is always going to Seattle. But evolution is not like that either. It is more like taking the blind man who learns to turn right at the end of the road, and the one who learns to turn left and duplicating both, and then again when the ends of those roads are met, the left and right turners are duplicated, and so on. Overtime blind drivers slowly make their way all over America. After a billion years you stand a fair chance of finding a blind driver in most American cities. But maybe not all, there will be some pathways the blind drivers have not yet learnt, there will be some dead ends, and some areas where the terrain is too difficult to negotiate. Say a bridge is out and the blind drivers just keep driving head first into the river. So there will be some real physical blocks on some evolution roads.

So I take your point that there will be some physical obstacles evolution cannot overcome. And as far as we can tell evolution has never taken place on the moon.

And that perhaps is the point, given finite time and finite resources evolution will get to where it gets. Some places it will miss out on because it has not yet explored all possible pathways, and some places will be beyond its reach - like the moon.

However if blind men reach some percentage of American cites and not Seattle, then one cannot say Ah, why has evolutionary process failed to get just there! Look at all the places the blind men did get to. Conversely if the blind man does get to Seattle one cannot say look at how improbable that is, that a blind man should get to Seattle specifically.

Given enough time ANYTHING is theoretically possible.

Well yes. But as just said evolution has to posit a time of less than approximately 4 billions years. So if you think anything is possible in that finite time frame, then why not evolution?

So is 4 billions years long enough? You might want to review the Stepping Stone argument and see how you feel about that. And then my criticism of its math.

FB

PS these blind men are driving special biodegradable cars, so the wrecks quickly rot way.

I don't think the analogy of the blind men is apt, since evolution is incremental, and starting from the beginning with someone traveling is not.

A more apt example would be penny that can flip 1024 times heads in a row. You start off with 2*1024 number of pennies, toss all of them, and then take all the heads. From a probabilistic point of view, you should have 2*1023 numbers of coinsz left. Repeat. half the coins should be heads again. It should take 1024 coin tosses to get to a single coin.. and that particular coin flipped heads 1024 times in a row!

Hi goat,

You are probably right. Osteng introduced the analogy as an argument against, and I have been trying to show how the situation would look, as argued by an evolutionist, within the general confines of that analogy. However that is probably the weakness of all analogies. They are useful only to a point.

One of the deficits of the anti evolutionary arguments as I read them is that they are criticizing a strawman version of evolution.

[QED]

The time period we are talking about is bounded by an approximate maximum figure of 4 billion years.

Actually, as evidenced by the Cambrian Explosion, it's bounded on the order of 50 million years.

So far the blind man is always going to Seattle. But evolution is not like that either.

True. The blind man does not know in advance that he's going to any particular city. But, he does have to end up in a city. That is, evolution has to produce something that is viable. If he runs out of gas in the middle of nowhere, he's a dead man.

So is 4 billions years long enough? You might want to review the Stepping Stone argument and see how you feel about that. And then my criticism of its math.

It's not that it's not long enough. But, the question is can it be explained within 50 million years?

I think you'll find that there was a significant amount of preparation for multicellular organism before the Cambrian. As I understand it, it took Cyanobacteria several billion years to transform the Earths' atmosphere into one containing significant amounts of Oxygen

But about 2.2 billion years ago, a remarkable transformation took place. Cyanobacteria, also known as blue-green algae, learned how to do oxygenic photosynthesis using sunlight, carbon dioxide and water to produce sugar and other carbohydrates, and giving off oxygen as a byproduct. Thanks to the abundance of all three substances, the cyanobacteria thrived, and the oxygen they produced began to fill the ocean and the atmosphere. Today, due to the photosynthetic action of both bacteria and plants, oxygen makes up about 20 percent of the Earth's atmosphere

The cyanobacteria have an extensive fossil record. The oldest known fossils, in fact, are cyanobacteria from Archaean rocks of western Australia, dated 3.5 billion years old. This may be somewhat surprising, since the oldest rocks are only a little older: 3.8 billion years old!

This report is of a bacterial species resurrected after a quarter of a billion years.

[otseng]

I think you'll find that there was a significant amount of preparation for multicellular organism before the Cambrian. As I understand it, it took Cyanobacteria several billion years to transform the Earths' atmosphere into one containing significant amounts of Oxygen

I'd be willing to debate this in another thread.

But here's one question for evolutionists to ponder. If Cyanobacteria transformed the Earth's atmosphere, that'd require a lot of them little critters. Where is the evidence of the massive gobs of them in the fossil record?

[Furrowed Brow]

Hi Osteng,

Listen. Me an QED are two totally different people. Honest. And I do have my own brain and I am not just following QED. However he does keep getting to my punchline before me. I'll go with his reply to your point about the Cambrian explosion.

True. The blind man does not know in advance that he's going to any particular city. But, he does have to end up in a city. That is, evolution has to produce something that is viable. If he runs out of gas in the middle of nowhere, he's a dead man.

Well all the blind men who ran out of gas in the middle of no where will expire. True. And all the blind men who don't, and who don't crash, and who don't drive over cliffs etc will end up somewhere. And even those who ran out of gas not in the middle of no where will be somewhere.

We're choosing to look at those who get to cities. And that is part of the problem of this type of criticism of evolution.

Take the function of e-coli. How did evolution produce that specific result? Well that is like asking how did a blind man end up in Seattle? What are the chances of that eh?

Ask the question that way and the destination just looks very specific, and the more specific it looks the more improbable it looks too. But that is only a view merited by taken the destination out of context of all the other destinations reached, nearly reached, and still to be reached by other blind men.