"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-?
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.