No, they do not rely on the same mechanism. To say they do is an outright lie. Microevolution is the varying of allele frequencies within an existing species. Macroevolution requires the introduction of new traits through mutation.
1 Don't assume deception over misconception.
2 Mutation is one of the factors which allow allele frequencies to change.
3 If the author believes
mutation to be a make-believe fairy-tale occurrence, he has no hope of understanding any of this.
There is no proof, therefore it is not so obvious. You consider it obvious because you don't want to believe anything other than evolution is possible.
"No proof"; the oldest trick in the book. Let's examine some equally valid assertions of "no proof":
1 "There is no proof [that electrons exist], therefore it is not so obvious. You consider it obvious because you don't want to believe anything other than [atomic theory] is possible."
2 "There is no proof [that Earth is not the center of the solar system], therefore it is not so obvious. You consider it obvious because you don't want to believe anything other than [heliocentrism] is possible."
3 "There is no proof [that anything is real], therefore it is not so obvious. You consider it obvious because you don't want to believe anything other than [reality] is possible."
Can you prove any one of these things?
ANSWER: NO.Because it doesn't have any control over its own genetic mutations.
It doesn't need to control them. Population dynamics does all the work for it.
You're talking about it as if these creatures have a choice in what they become [...]
Well, actually...The link brought up artificial selection as proof that macroevolution can't occur, [...]
No, it didn't. Please refer to the "There is no proof" assertion above for further information.
Just because you can't actually form a coherent argument against that without using a strawman doesn't mean you can disown the whole concept from evolutionary theory to avoid talking about it.
That was
your strawman. You were given the following statement:
Overbreeding an animal or a plant into one very specific purpose-breed is not comparable with how we imagine natural changes would happen [...]
and you shot down an entirely different statement, which no one here has made. Something like this:
Artificial selection has nothing at all to do with speciation.
That's a straw man, plain and simple.
No it isn't. That never has and never will happen, because both populations are still the same species and still have the same DNA, just in different allele frequencies.
Well, no, they don't have the same DNA. Do you think that the ancestral wolf species had every one of the alleles present in every dog breed in existence from the very start?
Let's say that a species of moth has a gene with two alleles for caterpillar bristles (an oversimplification). Allele a is for stubby hairs and allele b is for sharp spines. Only one population is in an environment with no predators, so the a allele remains. If spines require more resources, the population will have an increasing sparsity of individuals with spines until the entire population is nothing but aa. Due to predation, any other population will have an increasing sparsity of individuals with stubby hairs until the entire population is nothing but bb.
The link covers that in detail under the sections regarding "orphan genes" and "the tree of life".
No it doesn't. The orphan gene section is pure drivel. The author equates de novo mutation (see below) with the spontaneous assembly of something radically different.
de novo mutation
Synonyms: de novo gene mutation, new gene mutation, new mutationAn alteration in a gene that is present for the first time in one family member as a result of a mutation in a germ cell (egg or sperm) of one of the parents or in the fertilized egg itself
From
GeneReviews.
The tree of life argument isn't even supporting any of his assertions. Horizontal gene transfer is a thing. In fact, it's a source of genetic diversity.
Your statement directly implied an intelligence at work.
No it didn't. That's a misattribution. Show me exactly where you see any implication of intelligence or anything like it. Here's the actual sentence, by the way:
Why would a unicellular bacteria enter into concurrence with eukaryotes if it is so good at what it is doing right now?
Even if you were just referring to a natural force, I've been in this argument dozens of times on dozens of sites with people of varying levels of education including but not limited to; teachers, physicists, and biologists yet no one has ever been able to describe or define this force without personifying nature and/or random chance.
Mutations that result in phenotypes that are not suited to the environment they appear in are lost, whereas those that are better suited are maintained, because the better suited mutations increase the survivability of the mutated phenotype. No anthropomorphism required.
Besides, you still have no proof that there is any kind of force stopping current bacteria from changing species.
1 There isn't. He made no such claim.
2 Bacteria develop into new strains almost constantly. With enough conjugation, you get plenty of new species.
3 Still waiting for that proof of reality...
That was not what the article was saying and you know it. You're just trying to use a strawman to avoid a real discussion now.
Well the article asserts that "[Bacteria] never turn into anything new. They always remain bacteria." and "[Fruit flies] never turn into anything new. They always remain fruit flies." as though they should rapidly display completely different phenotypes before your very eyes. An exaggeration is not a straw man.
Everything about evolutionary theory directly contradicts what you just said in the above quote.
Dude; surely you must realize that the only thing there that doesn't
directly corroborate what he said is "According to some evolutionary biologists, this occurs in leaps and bounds [...]".
I would expect this kind of behavior from Fish, which is why I've stopped reading all of his posts, but a Knight of armorgames really should strive to be better than that.
And I bet you thought you'd be rid of me, too.
*maniacal laugh*You cannot simply accept that evolution is true because you don't have an alternative other than a deity.That is not a valid scientific argument, [...]
Which is probably why he isn't doing that. Evolutionary theory is the current best explanation of the evidence by a vast margin. That's it. There's no need for blind adherence. There's no need to enshrine Darwin's book as the last word in speciation. The point is that unless you have something that fits the facts even better, with equal or fewer anomalies (that's
anomalies, not to be confused with faults), the scientific community is going to keep working with what they've got.
You certainly seem to have hit the nail on the head there 09philj. There's really not much point in arguing most other fields of science when evolution is unfairly targeted as a punching bag. For every Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, and Buddhist that annoyingly tries to convert someone to their religion, there's a sane person discrediting their inept attempts at "proving" the existence of gods. Then they turn around and complain about how annoying it is when someone tries to attribute something to them that isn't even vaguely similar to what they actually said.
Indeed, Ishtaron. Misquotation most certainly is an all-too prevalent problem in these discussions.