nygreenguy wrote:otseng wrote:If we are to only go by what has been observed, then we can also rule out macroevolution. Macroevolution would only be an extrapolation of microevolution, not something that we can observe.Fossils are observation. Observation isnt just limited to guys in labs wearing white coats.
I didn’t say fossils are unobservable. I said macroevolution is unobservable. Now, I understand that there are differing definitions for this term. What I mean by macroevolution is major novel morphological features between different species. “An example of macroevolution is the appearance of feathers during the evolution of birds from theropod dinosaurs.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution
As for speciation, as I’ve mentioned before, I have no problem with this. Some classify this as macroevolution, but I do not. And I’m not alone is this view.
“The process of speciation may fall within the purview of either, depending on the forces thought to drive it.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution
Macroevolution is often explained as microevolution over a long period of time. And it typically involves scales of time much greater than what can be observed by man. This is what I mean by macroevolution being unobservable.
The reasons I would say that if a significant portion of ERVs are found to have beneficial functions would be an indicator of intentional design are two-fold. One is that neutral mutations would not be affected by natural selection, so there would be no mechanism to select them out. Another is that I do not see any evidence that harmful genetic mutations in humans are actually filtered out by any natural selection process.We see it all the time in the lab and in the field. Have you seriously not seen it, or dont you agree with it? I could give you tons if you want.
There are two things I claimed:
1. Neutral mutations would not be affected by natural selection, so there would be no mechanism to select them out.
2. I do not see any evidence that harmful genetic mutations in humans are actually filtered out by any natural selection process.
Which one are you referring to?
Take for example sickle cell disease. There is no indication that it will eventually disappear by natural selection or any other genetically inherited diseases.This is a bad example for a few reasons. One, we have modern medicine. Our medical techniques help save those who naturally would have died.
Even with modern medicine, is there an example that an inheritable genetic disease has been wiped out?
Then there is the fact it does offer some beneficial effect in malaria resistance. This also explains who the disease is more prevalent in people of african descent, than those of european or asian. Remember, in order to get rid of a harmful mutation, it must have an effect on fitness (ability to increase the proportion of your genes in the population). This is why diseases like huntingtons stick around. They really dont get bad until after breeding age.
In the US, malaria is not so common. And the few cases that do appear in the US are mostly a result of traveling from another country.
About 1,200 cases of malaria are diagnosed in the United States each year. Most are in persons entering the country for the first time or returning from foreign travel. A very small number of cases are the result of direct transmission involving mosquitoes that live in the United States. Most of these have occurred in Mexican farm workers living in California in poor conditions.
http://www.dhpe.org/infect/Malaria.html
So, there is not much benefit for Americans to have sickle cell disease.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=321017#p321017