Is a Hippo a Pig or a Whale?

CEH ^ | March 24, 2009

[GodGunsGuts]

Is a Hippo a Pig or a Whale?

March 24, 2009 — Two teams of evolutionists are having a spat over whale evolution. Thewissen and team (Northeastern Ohio U) say the hippo is close to the pig, but Jessica Theodor (U of Calgary) and Jonathan Geisler (Georgia Southern U) say it’s in the whale family tree. Their arguments and counter-arguments were published in Nature last week...

[CottShop]

[[And now you can say nothing except to blast away with insults.]]

Just returnign your volleys sir- if you don’t care to defend agaisnt the returned volleys, don’t serve up the first shots- pretty simple

[Tramonto]

I know nothing about the “lies and distortions” you claim, nor “extraordinary evidence for macro evolution.”

You should educate yourself about the lies and distortions. As for the ‘extraordinary evidence’ Darwinists claim that decent from a common ancestor is a fact that cannot be questioned because of the overwhelming evidence.

What I do know is just what science says: small changes continued over long periods of time can add up to large changes. So according to science, the ONLY difference between micro and macro evolution is the time period we chose to study.

Micro evolution is what is observed and able to be studied. Macro evolution is an incorrect extrapolation of the data. Again, if if you studied my lawn at night under a spotlight and cannot see any surrounding landscape, you might extrapolate the observations to conclude that the earth is flat and covered in short grass. That conclusion would be wrong.

But you anti-evolutionists take that word “macro-evolution” and twist it, bend it all out of shape to use as a weapon against science. Why? What's so hard for you about making small changes over long periods of time?

There is nothing hard to accept about small changes over a long period of time. The only thing you get from these small changes is rearranging already existing information, corruption or loss of information and duplication of information. No new complex systems arise over long periods of time.

[BroJoeK]

"Jeez you guys are dense."

Of course I can't speak for anyone else, but you are right about me -- I'm as dumb as they come. And you are obviously a genius, which I said in the beginning, but you keep trying to prove me wrong!

Listen carefully -- I have here a 13 page article on macro-evolution, written from a scientific perspective and defending the idea against anti-evolutionists. This long article can be summarized in just a few words:

Macro-evolution is nothing more than the sum of micro-evolutionary processes over long periods of time. That's it.

So which part of that, exactly, do you object to? In other words, where, in your mind, does micro-evolution stop and macro-evolution begin?

Finally, I note this gem:

"it's like me asking you to define exactly which biological system could not have been intelligently-designed."

Just so we're clear about this, like most Christians, including Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and "mainline" Protestants, I believe in something called "Theistic Evolution," meaning God created everything -- scientific and non-scientific, micro and macro, short-term and long-term, whatever. Whether He did it all in six days or six billion years is more-or-less irrelevant, except that science tells us the evidence points towards older dates. And that's fine with me.

So my direct & clear answer to your question is: imho, ALL biological systems were "intelligently designed" by God through processes that science describes with the word "evolution."

What's your problem with that?

[BroJoeK]

"As explained many itmes already- there is no ‘precise point’ because they are two wholly different biological processes- one that exists in reality, and one that is not a scientific reality in nature- Macroevo is a hypothesis that violates chemical, biological, natural and mathematical laws- Microevo is a process that has defiend species specific limitations due to species specific paramters- We know this through myriad tests and experiments- species reamin within their own kinds despite htrowing billions of years worth of mutaitons at them- Micro can not, and does not, nor has ever led to macroevo because hte two are exclusive biological processes which are NOT related one to hte other-"

As GourmetDan points out above, I'm about as dumb as they come, and so try as I might, I just can't find a definition for "macro-evolution" in your words above.

Nor can I see some way to distinguish micro- from macro-evolution.

And as I mentioned to Dan, I have here a 13 page article on the subject of macro-evolution, written from a scientific perspective and defending the idea against anti-evolutionists. This article can be summarized in just a few words:

Macro-evolution is nothing more than the sum of micro-evolutionary processes over long periods of time. That's it.

So I ask you too: which part of that, exactly, do you object to? In other words, where, in your mind does micro-evolution stop and macro-evolution begin?

[BroJoeK]

"Sorry- but I’ll have to dissagree- the differences ARE recognized by soem itnellectualy honest scientsits who don’t venture outside of science by attempting to extrapolate micro to macro because they recognize the two processes are completely different biologically"

"Completely different biologically"? But if I read real scientists, they say: small changes over time add up to big changes. Only the anti-science people claim it's "completely different." Why is that?

Indeed, I ask you yet again, can you tell me precisely and scientifically just what that difference is? In other words, when does evolution stop being micro- and start becoming macro-?

[BroJoeK]

"I think the threads are much more better and more informative now that a lot of the Christian-haters are gone."

We need to note again that most Christian denominations accept the idea of theistic evolution. So people who post here in opposition to anti-evolutionists, are not necessarily anti-Christian.

Indeed, I'm certain that Jim Robinson does not require posters to be Christians. What he does expect is that we will treat each other with at least some degree of respect, deference and, well, let's say good humor. ;-)

[BroJoeK]

"There is nothing hard to accept about small changes over a long period of time. The only thing you get from these small changes is rearranging already existing information, corruption or loss of information and duplication of information. No new complex systems arise over long periods of time."

"No new complex systems arise over long periods of time."

Can we call that the first (or 2nd) law of Intelligent Design-Creation Science? No new complex systems?

I am simply asking you to define for us precisely what you mean by "no new complex systems." In other words, when exactly would small changes stop being "micro-evolution" and start becoming "macro-evolution"?

[BroJoeK]

"Just returnign your volleys sir- if you don’t care to defend agaisnt the returned volleys, don’t serve up the first shots- pretty simple"

Two points here: first, I'd say you began with the insults in your first posts to me, and have continued every post since. In response, I've been very very gentle with you, ignoring nearly all your insults.

Second, I don't care about your insults in the least -- insult away all you like. I'm only pointing out a simple FACT, which is that an insult is not an argument. Indeed, an insult is usually a sorry-*ssed excuse for an argument, and that's what you do, all too often.

Finally, while we're on this subject: what the h*ll is wrong with you and your spell-checker? One click and it adds 20 points to your IQ. Why not use it?

[CottShop]

[[I’d say you began with the insults in your first posts to me,]]

You might wanna check your facts there fella- I wasn’t hte one insinuating ID is ignorant-

[[I’m only pointing out a simple FACT, which is that an insult is not an argument.]]

Like I said- Don’t want hte return volley? Then discuss the issues without the usual thinly veiled insinuations about ID and Creationism- simple

[CottShop]

[[One click and it adds 20 points to your IQ.]]

My IQ is fine thank you- Wanna compare IQ tests results?

[[ One click and it adds 20 points to your IQ. Why not use it?]]

Simple- I spend FAR too much time countering silly arguments to take hte time to go through my myriad spelling gaffs- I type quick, reasearch, answer many posts, and don’t give a whit about taking hte time to proof read my posts- I do have other htings to do beleive it or not

[John Leland 1789]

What if a hippo is a . . . hippo, and pig is a . . . pig, and a whale is a . . . whale, and if one was never another?

What if God created three different animals with a few similar characteristics that cause a stumbling block for evolutionists?

[CottShop]

[[But if I read real scientists,]]

Yes Yes- "Real Scientists"! I guess that doesn't include other scientsits who dissagree with your worldview of the two compeltely different mechanisms

[[when does evolution stop being micro]]

The differences have been explained in full in htisthread- Evolution doesn't stop being micro-

[[and start becoming macro-?]]

It doesn't, and can't- Macro, as explained several times, Micro results in TRAIT CHANGES- Macro hypothetically results in TRAIT ADDITIONS (Non species specific trait creation) The finch that changed over time to involve longer beaks survive- while short beak traits in the species died off- The Finch didn't evolve anythign new- anyhting not specific to that species.

Micro: 1. A trait will alter because of a stimulus. 2. The trait will return to the norm if left to nature or returned to its original conditions. 3. No new information is added to the DNA.

You'll have noticed I've mentioend a few terms I've coined several times 1: "Species Specific informaiton", and 2: "Species Specific Paramters". I have not come up with htese terms by plucking words out of htin air, but because they precisely explain the limits within species kinds that keep them within hteir own kind- this isn't some hypothesis either- it is a proven fact born out through extensive testing and experiments on species kinds. Species have limits to which they can microevolve, and as mentioned, these changes also work themselves out over time, goign back to their original configurations- this isn't an arbitrary event either- it's designed programming to keep hte species fit and to prevent it from 'corrupting'.

[[2. The DNA code barrier. A fact of genetics is that trait changes have a ceiling. This perhaps is the biggest obstacle to gradual change through micro-evolution. Each rung of DNA is made up of four chemicals called nucleotides, designated by the symbols: A (adenine), G (guanine), C (cytosine), and T (thymine). These rungs of DNA are combined to provide a blueprint of the traits that organism will have.]]

Think about this for a minute- IF the trillions of genetic changes took place that macroevolution claims must have 'at some point i the past', the species would be so corrupted as to be non viable life. In macroevolution, you. Species can only change inb minor ways, and they have several built in protection levels that prevent large scale changes- and I'm not just talking about 'all or nothing' all at once 'large changes' either- this includes small scale changes leading to large scale changes- or as macroevos like to say 'accumulations of small scale changes' 'over time'. ALL we see in nature is gene shuffling- we do NOT see addition of new non species specific info but according to Macroevolution, trillions of additions of new non species specific info must have occured 'at osme time in the past'? but apparently hit a wall and stopped because again, we see NO evidence that this ever happened.

Two key points here that seperate Micro and Macroeovlution: [[Trait changes result in re-arranging the genetic code that is already present.]]

[[ Mixing the available genetic code will produce variations in the trait but will not change into a completely different feature.... Different genes can create distinct variations but there is a limit. There can be rapid changes but inevitably, there is a return to the norm.]]

[LINK]

[[Micro-evolution studies how sub-species and variations arise. For example, the lengths of beaks of a certain bird have been show to change due to climatic changes. The percent of moths with certain colorations has seemingly changed in response to the changing needs of local camouflage. Micro-evolution has been shown to be correct in some instances. There are not as many such proofs as we might infer from the apologists for Darwinism and in some cases issues remain, but as a whole a reasonable person should certainly grant the principles of Darwinism have, in some cases, explained micro-evolution.

Macro-evolution refers to the origin of the species (not sub-species). This is what is at controversy.

"Large evolutionary innovations are not well understood. None has ever been observed, and we have no idea whether any may be in progress. There is no good fossil record of any." (Wesson R. Beyond Natural Selection. Cambridge (USA): MIT Press, 1991)

[LINK]

No 'Real Scientists' Acknowlege the difference eh? [[Many eminent evolutionists such as Steven Gould, Ivan Schmalhausen, Steven M. Stanley, and C. H. Waddington, hold that microevolution and macroevolution represent fundamentally different processes.[5]

“ New concepts and information from molecular, developmental biology, systematics, geology and the fossil record of all groups of organisms, need to be integrated into an expanded evolutionary synthesis. These fields of study show that large-scale evolutionary phenomena cannot be understood solely on the basis of extrapolation from processes observed at the level of modern populations and species. Patterns and rates of evolution are much more varied than had been conceived by Darwin or the evolutionary synthesis, and physical factors of the earth's history have had a significant, but extremely varied, impact on the evolution of life."[17] ”

The eminent evolutionist Ernst Mayr, who some consider the father of modern evolutionary biology, also acknowledges that one reason this controversy continues is because gradual transitions are not evident in the fossil record or even between living biota, but rather discontinuities are "overwhelmingly frequent."[18] If evolution were gradual and continuous, one would expect to find transitions between taxa. Yet, there is no intermediary between whales and terrestrial mammals, nor between reptiles and mammals, nor reptiles and birds, nor flowering plants and their nearest relatives. Indeed, all phyla of animals are separated by a gap. Likewise, the fossil record shows striking discontinuities, with new species appearing suddenly. Evolutionists offer explanations for such phenomena, such as the incomplete sampling that results from the fossil record, but the very presence of such gaps is one reason for the controversy.[5] ]]

[LINK]

A macroevolution claims that the only difference between micro and macro is 'the amount of change' and htis is NOT true- the difference is that micro changes info already present, has a ceiling, and reverts back to original configurations as soon as possible- Macro on the other hand ADDS new non species specific info, and results in the creation of new non species specific structures, but has never been observed, has never been shown, and MUST violate several key scientific laws in order to accomplish it's 'goals' of change from one kind to another.

There is much more to this issue than I am able to explain here today- biologically, the two processes are compeltely different, and macro violates this key scientific law, as well as others- I'm too exhausted today to expound further, but it should be clear that there are indeed 'Real Scientists' who are intellectually honest enough to cede that the differences exist, and that ignoring htese differences must hterefore mean one who does so is not practicing 'Real Science' but rather a form of apologetics that extrapolates a wholly different biological process from a lower process which is completely different.

[CottShop]

[[As GourmetDan points out above, I’m about as dumb as they come, and so try as I might, I just can’t find a definition for “macro-evolution” in your words above.

Nor can I see some way to distinguish micro- from macro-evolution.]]

No, you’re not dumb Joe, You just have an a priori belief that gives a blind spot.

[[Macro-evolution is nothing more than the sum of micro-evolutionary processes over long periods of time. That’s it.]]

Yup- that’s the claim- but it’s an apologetic extrapolation where one should not, scientifically, exist because hte two processes are scientifically different.

Here’s a thread on FR discussing the differences- although I haven’t read through it- I suspect though that the biological differences between the two processes aren’t discussed- so I guess I’m goign to have to delve into the subject myself probably tomorrow or next day- I’m wiped out hpysically right now- but give this thread a quick read- http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2202955/posts

Evolutionists assume that the small, horizontal microevolutionary changes (which are observed) lead to large, vertical macroevolutionary changes (which are never observed). This philosophical leap of faith lies at the eve of evolution thinking.

(as for no ‘real scientists’ beleiving htere is a difference) In 1980 about 150 of the world’s leading evolutionary theorists gathered at the University of Chicago for a conference entitled “Macroevolution.” Their task: “to consider the mechanisms that underlie the origin of species” (Lewin, Science vol. 210, pp. 883-887). “The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution . . . the answer can be given as a clear, No.”

http://www.icr.org/article/what-difference-between-macroevolution-microevolut/

[[Macroevolution is not just a whole lot of microevolution accumulated over a long period of time. Microevolution involves expression of recessive genes by removing dominant genes from the gene pool. Macroevolution would require the creation of new genes from scratch. They aren’t the same thing at all.]]

http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v8i2e.htm

[BroJoeK]

"I type quick, reasearch, answer many posts, and don’t give a whit about taking hte time to proof read my posts-"

Your spelling mistakes make you look ignorant. Your insults make you look, well, insulting. Ignorant and insulting are not attractive features -- hard to win an argument that way. So, if you are going to put ANY effort into these posts, why not take the time to do it right?

Indeed, here's your basic problem: you spend way way too much time typing too many words. You should eliminate about 80% of those words, then focus focus focus your attention on getting the few words you write just right.

Yes, you'll say a lot less, but you'll make your points a lot better. Just my opinion, of course...

[Tramonto]

BroJoe, Your ignorance could never be covered up by spell check.

[BroJoeK]

"Macroevolution is not just a whole lot of microevolution accumulated over a long period of time. Microevolution involves expression of recessive genes by removing dominant genes from the gene pool. Macroevolution would require the creation of new genes from scratch. They aren’t the same thing at all."

I'll take this as a brief summary of your lengthy argument in post #153.

Remember, my question from the beginning has been very simple: can you define for me precisely the line which separates micro from macro evolution?

Here, finally, you mention something about "new genes." Is that it? Are "New genes" all that make the difference between micro and macro?

So you'd say: as long as there are no "new genes" then micro-evolution is still A-OK. But, if ever a "new gene" appears, that would be "macro-evolution" and is forbidden by the laws of Intelligent Design Creation Science, right?

And just how, precisely, do you define the term "new gene"?

[BroJoeK]

"BroJoe, Your ignorance could never be covered up by spell check."

I see you enjoy a good insult too, eh? A lot easier than making serious arguments isn't it, pal?

[BroJoeK]

"You might wanna check your facts there fella- I wasn’t hte one insinuating ID is ignorant-"

"Ignorant"? Do you want to find the post and quote where I said ID is "ignorant"? I wonder if you mistake me for someone else?

I think I've been pretty consistent here, asking over and over the same question: where exactly, precisely do you draw the line between micro and macro evolution. So far, I've seen a lot of beat-around-the-bush type words, and more than a few insults, but no straight forward answers.

But it's still not too late...

[BroJoeK]

"Two teams of evolutionists are having a spat over whale evolution."

By the way, I never did notice if anyone gave the correct answer to this question -- is the hippo a pig or whale?

A hippo is neither a pig nor a whale, it's a hippo. Fossil analyses say hippos seem distantly related to both pigs and whales. But according to newer DNA analysis, they are closer to whales than pigs.

Of course, you've probably seen, whenever people ask the hippos which relative they feel closer to, their only response is a big big yawn. I guess, by now hippos are bored with the subject... ;-)

[Tramonto]

A hippo is neither a pig nor a whale, it's a hippo. Fossil analyses say hippos seem distantly related to both pigs and whales. But according to newer DNA analysis, they are closer to whales than pigs.

At precisely what moment did a hippo become a hippo? Exactly how different from a pig does a hippo have to be to be a hippo without turning into a whale?