Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does microevolution logically include macroevolution?
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 151 of 195 (247327)
09-29-2005 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Springer
09-29-2005 1:05 PM


evidence and theory
Hello, Springer.
quote:
Your hypothesis sounds reasonable, but I'm looking for evidence that it's actually possible.
At the risk of being suspended for endlessly repeating myself, I will post my little description of the theory of evolution. Do you want evidence that it is possible? The following is a very brief description of the theory of evolution. The items that I have labelled as fact are observed, verified facts; as long as the items labelled conclusions logically follow, then the items labelled as facts count as evidence that evolution is actually possible:
1. Fact: Most breeding organisms produce more offspring than is necessary to replace themselves.
2. Fact: The population of most species are not increasing.
3. Conclusion: Most individuals must die before reproducing.
4. Fact: Many of the physical traits of individual organisms are hereditary.
5. Fact: Some traits make an organism more likely to survive and reproduce, while others make an organism less likely to survive and reproduce.
6. Conclusion: From 3, 4, and 5 we can conclude that organisms with the traits that make them more likely to survive and reproduce will produce offspring with those traits, while organisms with traits that make them less likely to survive and reproduce will leave few or no offspring with those traits.
7. Conclusion: A corollary of 6 is that as generations pass, the number of organisms with "good" traits will increase, while the number of organisms with "bad" traits will decrease, until eventually all individuals in the species will have the "good" trait and the "bad" trait will disappear altogether.
8. Fact: New heritable traits, usually subtle, occasionally appear.
9. Fact: These new traits do not appear in any predictable pattern; these traits can appear in any body part or instinctual behavior; furthermore, some of these traits are helpful to an organism's survival, and others are detrimental.
10. Conclusion: From 7, 8 and 9 we can conclude that a species will slowly "improve" with time, as new helpful traits appear and as the organisms with these traits are better able to survive and produce offspring with these traits.
11. Fact: There is no mechanism that is known to prevent these small, incremental changes from adding up, over time, to large changes; furthermore, there very few (if any) physical organs and instinctual behaviors in any species that do not appear in simpler versions in other species.
12. Conclusion: From 10 and 11 we conclude that there is nothing that will prevent very simple, primitive living species from producing the complex species that we see around us.
13. Fact: Occassionally separate populations of a species will become physically isolated from one another and cannot interbreed.
14. Conclusion: From 9 and 13 we conclude that these populations will evolve independently; from 12 we conclude that these will become different species.
15. Conclusion: From several interations of 14, we conclude that several species can have a common ancestor.
Now, I have given reasons to believe that evolution is possible. Do you dispute any of the facts that I have stated? Do you disagree with any of the conclusions that I have deduced? If so, which ones and why? If not, then why do you not agree that evolution is possible?
-
Now that we see that evolution is possible, let us try to decide whether there is evidence that it has actually occurred. How does science work? We use our theory to make predictions, predictions that should be observed if the theory were true, and then see if we observe the predictions.
If evolution were true, then we should see that the species can be placed in a nested hierarchical pattern. This is because species that share a recent common ancestor should be very, very similar, species that share a slightly more distant ancestor should be similar but not as similar, species that only share a very, very distant ancestor should exhibit very few significant similarities.
Now, there isn't any other process that would predict this type of pattern. So, if we observe that the species fall into a nested hierarchical pattern that counts as confirmation of evolution; if no nested hierarchy is observed that counts as a falsification. This is not simply a word game; this is how science works, and this is how every single theory in every single field of science is tested.
What do we observe? Linnaeus himself, long before Darwin proposed his theories, noted that the species do fit a hierarchical pattern. Thus, the hierarchical classification confirms the theory of evolution. This is only one piece of evidence, of course, but any evidence counts.
-
quote:
It equally fits a model of intellligent design.
I am afraid that you do not understand the point. It is true that an intelligent designer could have created the species with this pattern, but as I pointed out in another thread she need not have. If you try to classify any human-created object, like watches, you would not get a unique nested hierarchy. The actual pattern would depend on which characteristics were used to classify watches, and in which order they were chosen. An intelligent designer could have mixed and matched characteristics, to give snakes with feathers, birds with mammary glands, and so forth. There is no reason to expect a priori how a designer would have made her designs. If intelligent design were true, there is no reason to expect a nested hierarchy as opposed to any other pattern. On the other hand, if evolution and common descent were true, then there must be a hierarchical pattern. It cannot be avoided. And we do see a nested hierarchy. So we consider this evidence for evolution; again, this is not sophistry -- this is how any scientific theory is tested.
-
Now let us examine the fossil record. The fossil record is not necessary for the theory of evolution; there is plenty of other evidence for common descent. However, the fossil record has spectacular evidence in favor of evolution; futhermore, the evidence is so spectacular, that it makes an intelligent designer look quite odd.
Take whales. In the hierarchical classification, whales are definitely mammals. Therefore, according the theory of common descent, whales must have evolved from land mammals. Therefore, according to the theory of evolution, there used to exist, at various times, animals that showed characteristics that were in-between those of land mammals and modern whales, the so-called "transitional species". The question is now, did these species actually exist? It turns out that, indeed, there used to be creatures that had characteristics in between those of ancient land mammals and modern whales.
Now, these species did not have to exist. There is no reason aside from the theory of evolution to expect them. But the theory of evolution states that they must have existed. And, in fact, they did exist! And so, each of these species counts as confirmation of the theory of evolution.
Of course, an intelligent designer might have created these species as well. But why? More to the point, why did she create so many "transitionals" that are predicted by the theory of evolution? Why did she create a series of bipedal apes that bridge the gap between humans and non-human apes? Why did she create so many creatures that were neither fish nor tetrapod (four legged animal), but instead show intermediate characteristics between fish and ancient tetrapods?
A more interesting question, is why is there no evidence of creatures that do not fit the evolutionary pattern? According to the theory of evolution, whales must have evolved from earlier mammals. They could not have evolved directly from fish. So according to the theory of evolution, there should be no species that are intermediate between fish and whales. Yet the intelligent designer, who created terrestrial mammal/whale "transitionals" could have created fish/whale transitionals. She could have created insect/rat transitionals. She chould have created bird/bat transitionals. Yet we see no evidence that these types of species ever existed. It appears that the intelligent designer only created species that confirm the theory of evolution. Why would she do such a thing?
It is a matter of Occam's Razor here. Why would one prefer to believe that a creator created species that appear to have evolved rather than believe that evolution has actually occurred? That is why the concept of intelligent designer is not accepted in biology; evolution, without a invoking a designer, not only explains what is observed, but correctly [i]predicts[/url] things that are observed. The concept of a designer, on the other hand, that created the appearance of evolution begins to strain credulity. One could believe in it, I suppose, if that is what one wishes; I don't see the point, however. Why not accept the evidence as it stands?

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Springer, posted 09-29-2005 1:05 PM Springer has not replied

  
Springer
Inactive Member


Message 152 of 195 (247329)
09-29-2005 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by PaulK
09-29-2005 1:58 PM


Re: What evidence do you expect?
Everyone knows that barriers exist. Their existence is evidenced by the fact that all known species of dogs are not any less canine than any other species. It is up to a proponent of ToE to prove that these barriers CAN be broken... The biology that we all observe tells us that they can't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by PaulK, posted 09-29-2005 1:58 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Chiroptera, posted 09-29-2005 2:42 PM Springer has not replied
 Message 154 by PaulK, posted 09-29-2005 2:48 PM Springer has not replied
 Message 155 by Modulous, posted 09-29-2005 3:51 PM Springer has not replied
 Message 157 by crashfrog, posted 09-29-2005 6:58 PM Springer has not replied
 Message 159 by RAZD, posted 09-29-2005 8:37 PM Springer has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 153 of 195 (247341)
09-29-2005 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Springer
09-29-2005 2:10 PM


Re: What evidence do you expect?
Hello again, Springer. Sorry to butt into your converstation with PaulK.
quote:
Everyone knows that barriers exist.
I certainly do not know any such thing.
-
quote:
Their existence is evidenced by the fact that all known species of dogs are not any less canine than any other species.
Really? How does one define "canine-ness", and how do we measure the degree of "canininity"? If there is no such measurement, then it is scientifically meaningless to say that no breed of dogs is "less canine" than any other breed.
-
quote:
It is up to a proponent of ToE to prove that these barriers CAN be broken.
Except that such barriers have never been shown to exist, therefore a proponent of evolution need not do anything.

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Springer, posted 09-29-2005 2:10 PM Springer has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 154 of 195 (247343)
09-29-2005 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Springer
09-29-2005 2:10 PM


Re: What evidence do you expect?
Everyone who has discussed this subject knows that creationists claim that barriers exist - and never offer any real evidence. It seems that you are no exception.
So now that's disposed of, how about producing this probability problem you claim exists ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Springer, posted 09-29-2005 2:10 PM Springer has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 155 of 195 (247350)
09-29-2005 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Springer
09-29-2005 2:10 PM


Re: What evidence do you expect?
existence is evidenced by the fact that all known species of dogs are not any less canine than any other species
Hmm, you've nailed it on the head. Also, we know that all known species of mammal are not any less mammalian than any other species. And damningly (for evolution), all known species of primate are not any less primatary than any other species.
Or, perhaps, this is a natural conclusion from a hierarchical evolutionary process. All creatures which are born of the kingdom Animalia are equally animal. All creatures born of the phylum Chordata are equally notochordian, all from the subphylum of Vertebrata are equally vertebraic, all born organisms in the class Mammalia are no less and no more mammalian, all who are born in the order Carnivora are equally (no more no less) Carnivorae (not carnivorous, though most are), and those born from organisms in the Canidae family are all equally canine.
So these barriers do exist...but diversity increases to warrant more and more levels to this hierarchy. To quote a famous biologist:
Futuyma, D.J. in Evolutionary Biology writes:
...diversification comes about by speciation, which normally entails the gradual evolution of reproductive isolation among populations; and that these processes, continued for sufficiently long, give rise to changes of such great magnitude as to warrant the designation of higher taxonomic levels (genera, families, and so forth).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Springer, posted 09-29-2005 2:10 PM Springer has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 156 of 195 (247371)
09-29-2005 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Springer
09-29-2005 11:29 AM


Otter from a dog
I would like to see evidence that it's possible to breed an otter (or any other non-canine type) from a dog
Well, anything that is bred from a dog would have to be a canine, as I explained earlier, but an otter-like canine is perfectly possible:
Here is the first few characters of one protein (cytochrome b) for a domestic dog:
quote:
mtnirkthpl akivnnsfid lpapsnisaw wnfgsllgvc lilqiltglf lamhytsdta
Here is the same section for an otter, the differences are highlighted:
quote:
mtnirkthpl tkiinnsfid lpapsnisaw wnfgsllgic lilqiltglf lamhytsdtt
To make this doglike protien a little more otter like we just keep breeding until these differences come about...kill those that don't have the right differences and breed those that do.
There you go evidence that it is possible to breed dogs so they are more and more otter-like. Can you provide evidence that it is not possible?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Springer, posted 09-29-2005 11:29 AM Springer has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 157 of 195 (247392)
09-29-2005 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Springer
09-29-2005 2:10 PM


Re: What evidence do you expect?
Their existence is evidenced by the fact that all known species of dogs are not any less canine than any other species.
How are you measuring "canine", exactly? I've seen some pretty non-canine dogs. To say that they lack a degree of, um, caninity(?), would be an understatement.
If you're telling me, though, that dogs are dogs because they're dogs, why would you expect that to be percieved as a meaningful statement, much less some kind of rebuttal against the mountain of evidence that supports evolution?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Springer, posted 09-29-2005 2:10 PM Springer has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 158 of 195 (247395)
09-29-2005 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by Springer
09-29-2005 1:57 PM


Re: What evidence do you expect?
I want to see someone try to breed a bat from a rodent.
Ok, I'll do it. I'll need you to provide me with a breeding stock of a species of bat that can go from newborn to fertile adult in under 36 hours.
Cuz, otherwise, we'll be here for a while.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Springer, posted 09-29-2005 1:57 PM Springer has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 159 of 195 (247437)
09-29-2005 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Springer
09-29-2005 2:10 PM


Re: What evidence do you expect?
Everyone knows that barriers exist.
Typical logical fallacy, appeal to anonymous authority conflated with argument from incredulity.
In point of fact there is no difference in the DNA changes between species and those between classes, the DNA is too simple to have that kind of barrier.
Perhaps you can tell me where the genome of the dog and the genome of the otter are so significantly different that one cannot become the other with a little re-arranging?
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Springer, posted 09-29-2005 2:10 PM Springer has not replied

  
Springer
Inactive Member


Message 160 of 195 (247449)
09-29-2005 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by black wolf
09-29-2005 1:32 PM


Re: What evidence do you expect?
Black Wolf:
Interesting you would suggest such a probability, because an event with a probability of .0000000000000000002 would NEVER happen in the supposed 4.5 billion year age of the earth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by black wolf, posted 09-29-2005 1:32 PM black wolf has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by RAZD, posted 09-29-2005 9:19 PM Springer has not replied
 Message 162 by crashfrog, posted 09-29-2005 9:20 PM Springer has not replied
 Message 163 by jar, posted 09-29-2005 9:20 PM Springer has not replied
 Message 164 by Springer, posted 09-29-2005 9:28 PM Springer has not replied
 Message 174 by Nuggin, posted 09-30-2005 9:39 AM Springer has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 161 of 195 (247453)
09-29-2005 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Springer
09-29-2005 9:14 PM


Re: What evidence do you expect?
why?

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Springer, posted 09-29-2005 9:14 PM Springer has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 162 of 195 (247454)
09-29-2005 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Springer
09-29-2005 9:14 PM


Re: What evidence do you expect?
Interesting you would suggest such a probability, because an event with a probability of .0000000000000000002 would NEVER happen in the supposed 4.5 billion year age of the earth.
Why do you say that? What if you tried to make it happen 1000000000000000000 times a second?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Springer, posted 09-29-2005 9:14 PM Springer has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 163 of 195 (247455)
09-29-2005 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Springer
09-29-2005 9:14 PM


Re: What evidence do you expect?
And your proof is?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Springer, posted 09-29-2005 9:14 PM Springer has not replied

  
Springer
Inactive Member


Message 164 of 195 (247457)
09-29-2005 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Springer
09-29-2005 9:14 PM


Re: What evidence do you expect?
The arguments I've been hearing are far too simplistic. The very mechanisms of microevolution are different from macroevolution. In the former, phenotypic differences are achieved by shuffling genes around in the existing gene pool. For macroevolution to occur, beneficial mutations are required. While I concede that critical protein substitutions are possible. I've yet to be convinced that any of this is within the realm of reasonable probability. If macroevolutionary change has been so ubiquitous in the past, then why can no one demonstrate it in a laboratory?
You can refute that barriers exist, but my challenge stands. Simple protein substitutions in DNA may look easy... fine... let's see someone do it. To simply examine the blueprint of a genetic code after the fact and conclude that it could have happened through random events is misleading. First of all, the difference between an otter and a dog is not only one protein substituion. It would require many simultaneous beneficial substitutions. Try to fathom the probability. Better yet, let's how close someone can get to making an otter from a dog by artificially inducing random mutations.
The argument that a creator would not have created living things as they are reflects only philosophical or religious bias and is a baseless argument in a scientific forum.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Springer, posted 09-29-2005 9:14 PM Springer has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by RAZD, posted 09-29-2005 9:37 PM Springer has not replied
 Message 166 by nwr, posted 09-29-2005 9:39 PM Springer has not replied
 Message 167 by RAZD, posted 09-29-2005 9:46 PM Springer has not replied
 Message 168 by PaulK, posted 09-30-2005 3:00 AM Springer has not replied
 Message 169 by Thor, posted 09-30-2005 4:55 AM Springer has not replied
 Message 172 by Chiroptera, posted 09-30-2005 8:43 AM Springer has not replied
 Message 176 by Modulous, posted 09-30-2005 7:25 PM Springer has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 165 of 195 (247462)
09-29-2005 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by Springer
09-29-2005 9:28 PM


Re: What evidence do you expect?
. I've yet to be convinced that any of this is within the realm of reasonable probability.
Argument from incredulity, a logical fallacy. Ignoring evidence does not make it go away or stop evolution from happening.
... let's see someone do it.
There have been examples of evolution presented and you keep dismissing them.
What you want to do is compress 1 million years into the next 50 ... your problem is that you want it now like a treat before dinner. Life doesn't operate on your whim. Sorry about that.
But that also does not invalidate evolution. That's your problem eh?
The argument that a creator would not have created living things as they are ...
Okay, why do humans have such bad eyes? Do any other species need glasses to see? Why do the retinas face away from the light in humans but not in octopuses? Why do octopuses use a different method to focus the image in their eyes?
Why don't you see the combination of methods to focus the eye from both human and octopus eye to make an eye that can zoom the image at will and focus it regardless of failure of one system?
That would be a good design.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Springer, posted 09-29-2005 9:28 PM Springer has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024