Advocatus Diaboli

The Case:

Creationist claims that microevolution cannot cause macroevolution. The "genetic code" prevents this. There is variation, but this variation is used up(?). Once this variation is used up, there can be no inrease in information, since the genetic code prevents it.

I've asked for information about this genetic code that prevents the increase in information. I received silence.
I've asked why can't any mutations happen after the variation is used up. I received red herring.

Why do I torture myself? Because I enjoy the feeling of being a better debater.

Coragyps

"Variation is used up."

How the frick does one "use up" the ability to change stuff? Ask him how you would "use up" the ability to send messages in Morse Code......

Doubting Didymus

Once again, the terms are totally misunderstood. One day I will launch an official scientific petition for the permanant destruction of those terms.

Advocatus Diaboli

I prepared a long post with several observed cases of new genetic information, new botanic species from hybrids (hybridi..hybridic...hybri*cough*tion) and the same questions about what could possibly prevent microevolution from becoming macroevolution. No joy. No answers, apart from "there is NO increase in information!"

Maybe I'll do the only intelligent thing that one can do in a situation like this:
I'll keep pushing it until the end of the world!

Secular Pinoy

No way! We punk-eek'ers love those terms, though we use 'em in a non-standard way, which no doubt adds to the confusion.

RufusAtticus

Genetic Barriers Don't Exist, written by Your's Truly.

Advocatus Diaboli

I love you, and I want to have children with you.

MrDarwin

One of my all-time favorite examples is the Hawaiian Silversword Alliance. On the Hawaiian islands, three genera comprising a couple dozen species are found nowhere else on earth, presumably having evolved from a single common ancestor that colonized the islands sometime in the past. These things look entirely different, yet are still able to hybridize, not only among themselves, but with two other genera on the North American mainland. Thus by the YEC definition, these five genera are all the same "kind" yet there are enormous morphological differences between them. Just how much microevolution does it take before you start to see real macroevolution? (The irony is that, according to YECs, this "microevolution" all had to happen in about 4,000 years, not the several million since geologists and evolutionary biologists believe these plants first reached the islands.)

But I'm sure a YEC would reply, "but they're all still weeds!"

KC

I have been having a discussion with one creationist who is appealing to genetic homeostasis to show that there are limits to how much change populations under selection will allow. Apparently, he thinks genetic homeostasis is some innate kind of self-regulation by organisms to resist evolution, instead of the tendency of gene complexes to evolve together, and thus resist drastic changes in frequency such as we see in breeding experiments.

It has been difficult to help this guy extricate himself from misconception over what is admittedly a subtle concept to a layman. Sigh. Just venting.

KC

Advocatus Diaboli

As a matter of fact, for some strange reason plants and weeds aren't good enough for my little creationist! He insists examples from the animal kindom, and animal kindom only. Period.

AAAAAAARGH!!!
:banghead:

P.S. No, I haven't been able to get the answer to any of my previous questions, nor any explanation why plants are out.
Luckily, the whole forum is starting to get pissed of about him.