Evolution Logic

Welcome to the fray.What would you consider macroevolution to involve?I'm not asking to be cute but to see what kind of evidence you are looking for.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

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.

Not really, that is what "micro"evolution covers - speciation, of which we have many many examples. You never will. This is a strawman concept and not evolution. "Macro"evolution is the accumulation of microevolutionary changes until the divergence is sufficient that we humans say "wow, it's really different" -- it's really an artificial human intellectual construct.But you will only ever see "micro"evolution between species in many steps in between. Now if you are interested in exploring those many steps over long periods of time that show a sufficient divergence that we humans say "wow, it's really different" -- we can do that. Genetics does not prevent it, and thus it does permit it. There is no difference to genetics where or what any mutation is, they just happen. This is "hopeful monster" evolution and not real. You need to think this thru a little better than this.For instance, what do you think a "half feather - half scale" fossil would look like? and then consider whether you would accept it as such or only as one or the other?This is why I asked for your definitions here. You seem to expect "macro"evolution not just on the time scale of speciation but on a one generation change.Speciation takes several generations, and "macro"evolution takes several speciation events to accomplish -- generations of generations.I'll get through the rest of this topic tonight, but I expect a lot of flak to be generated.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

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.

Nope. We just need change in genes. The amount of "information" is irrelevant. Evolution is change in species over time.I bet you can't even define a standard by which the amount of "information" in a gene could be measured such that you could determine whether it increased or decreased.But the real kicker is that you have a series species that evolve a feature, lose it and later regain it -- can you tell me which one did NOT gain information in the process? Just because you have a lack of imagination doesn't mean that nature is somehow restricted by it. Your arguments are the argument from incredulity -- combined with a strawman caricature of evolution -- both logical fallacies.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

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.

Can you demonstrate how "macro"evolution cannot be an accumulation of "micro"evolution changes? Demonstrate how they are two different {mechanisms\things}?Without such a demonstration this is just a statement, an argument from incredulity. You really need to define the differences better than that or you will just keep saying "oh that's just variation is a kind, and not macroevolution" -- you need to specify what will qualify in YOUR mind as macroevolution: That is "micro"evolution. You need to differentiate better than that. How much different do you need? And what kind of time scale will you consider? Just to repeat some things that have been said on this issue: evolution is change is species over time. Any change in any direction is evolution - even those that cause death.Sometimes features are discarded when they are no longer useful - because they waste energy and resources to produce that could be better 'spent' on other newer features. Hind legs on whales fits that picture, eyes on animals in caves also fits that picture. That does not prevent some features from developing in new directions to become new kinds of limbs. By my definition of macroevolution or yours? Or by putting your fingers in your ears, wearing a blindfold and shouting even louder?http://EvC Forum: Evolution Logic -->EvC Forum: Evolution LogicNo answer yet?Looks like you haven't really defined macroevolution yet in a way that can be used to then define what kind of evidence you will consider.Exactly what do you expect to see that shows "macro"evolution but not "micro"evolution?Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

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.

http://EvC Forum: Evolution Logic -->EvC Forum: Evolution LogicStill looking for your definition of "macro"evolution.

So you keep saying, yet you have not layed out what those major differences are and how they act in different ways. Restating that you think there are big differences is not substantiation of your argument, its just a boring argument from incredulity and ignorance. You keep saying it is different but you have not defined HOW it is different. You keep saying that it cannot happen but you don't SHOW how it cannot happen. You keep making the same boring argument from incredulity and ignorance. Again.So far your only working definition of "macro"evolution is that you don't think it can happen, therefore you don't think it can happen. Not much use eh? Once again, this is only a repeated statement based on an argument from incredulity and ignorance, and NOT a substantiation of your position with evidence.There is no limit to genetics that has yet been found, no barrier to mutations happening in any position or causeing any specific change or other. To say genetics does not permit it you have to show evidence of a mechanism that prevents it, not just make unsubstantiated assertions based on incredulity and ignorance.Mutation do, have and will cause evolution to proceed. On this point you are absolutely wrong.Evolution is change in species through time. Mutations are the mechanism for changes to the genetics of a species. Natural selection is the mechanism where non-disadvantageous mutations are not eliminated from the gene pool. Therefore it can't happen? Just, and only, because YOU can't picture it? Don't you see how invalid this argument from incredulity and ignorance is? YOUR failure of imagination has no effect on the continued evolution of all life on earth. Or on anything in the universe. What is ridiculous is the continued blind denial of the evidence that has been presented on the gradual evolution of the feather over substantial time and the evolution of numerous species along the way.Does a feather need to evolve from a scale? Nope, so this is a strawman in your argument (another logical fallacy btw). It can have evolved from any type of {skin\surface} feature. If it evolved from any soft tissue feature then the chances of fossil preservation are limited (but not eliminated -- as we see with more and more fossils that show developments of feathers on dinosaurs)You can't use denial of evidence as a substantiation of your argument. Can I take it from this that your definition of "macro"evolution does NOT include the "hopeful monster" concept?If we can agree on this, then how do you define "macro"evolution without having it encompass the accumulation over time of many intermediate evolutionary steps, each one on the level of "micro"evolution as it is passed from species to species by descent of selected features (natural selection of non-disadvantageous mutations over time ... evolution).Bottom line: how do you define "macro"evolution?Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

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.

How do you get those changes without microevolution? You have speciation events at the beginning of the divergence between two {family} branches, and then subsequent speciation (microevolution) events within each branch until the groups of species are recognized (by humans) as different enough (to say "wow, they're different") to be grouped into different "families" of species.This is what the fossil record shows.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

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.

What kind of change, how much, ... what is your definition of "maccro"evolution?You need to set the benchmark of what it is you want to see not just wave your hands at all the evidence. So you keep stating,but you haven't provided any evidence for HOW it cannot happen. Just repeating statements of incredulity and ignorance is NOT evidence. Why progressive? Evolution is evolution, it is neither "progressive" nor "regressive" - it is just change in species over time."Progressive" is an egotistical valuation of some changes compared to others from a purely human viewpoint, a viewpoint which - like your opinion - has absolutely no effect on what happens in the natural world universe. Nope. Again your assumption of "advances" is an erroneous valuation from your {egotistical} human viewpoint.We would just need a lot of changes, each one small and relatively insignificant in the grand scope of things, but by accumulation over time (3.5 billion years) amounting to "significant" enough for a vast and divergent ecology that happens to include us at this time. But you see, "decreases and loss" is once again your {egotistical} human viewpoint, and not of any importance to the natural universe. Is it a "loss" to get rid of extra baggage? Is it a "decrease" to stop wasting resources on a non-productive element?Is it a loss for a horse to lose extra toes so that it can stand taller on one extended and fused toe-foot? It's still standing isn't it? And that extra leg length translates into being able to run faster for the same amount of leg development: is that a decrease?

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

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.

Another unsubstantiate assertion that is contradicted by facts.If you want to discuss this you can take it to {Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part III}
http://EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) -->EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III)Or I can start another {Age Correlations, step by step} just for you.
EvC Forum: Age Correlations, step by step.or you can try to ignore reality.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

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.

In other words you made another assertion and do not want to back it up?Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

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.

So you keep saying, but you have yet to present ANY evidence.You are saying that 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1 does not equal 14.Saying it does not make it so.Until you actually present some kind of evidence for your assertion all it amounts to is your opinion stated over and over and over and over, and ... it has absolutely NO effect on the natural universe.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

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.

That's not a definition. That is just a list of your personal misunderstandings of evolution. No, you haven't defined what "macro"evolution would be. All you have said is what it would NOT be.You have not demonstrated why it cannot be the accumulation of many "micro"evolutionary changes in species over time, and until you DO that you cannot CLAIM it is not such an accumulation. You can call it anything you want, it is still change in species over time, so it is evolution. But at least we can start with examples of "micro"evolution, and not have you pretend it doesn't happen eh? Why and How? More to the point how NOT by accumulation of "micro"evolution?Don't you get tired of making the same claim over and over and not providing any evidence, any reason for your claim other than your profound incredulity and pedestrian ignorance?What prevents it? What is the {biological\genetic} obstacle that allows "micro"evolution but prevents "macro"evolution from happening? Where is the switch that says this little change is ok, but THAT little change take it outside "kind" and cannot happen? Other than in your mind. ROFLOL. This is a false statement, you have been corrected on it, so repeating it is just repeating your previous mistake.Repeating false statements does not make them any more valid the second or the hundreth time it is repeated. No you haven't defined what "macro"evolution is, you just keep repeating what you think it isn't, without regard for whether you are correct or not.Evolution is change in species over time. That is all there is. It happens on a species to species level. After species have diverged there is NO mechanism that prevents further changes in either species, but they will always be related back to the species where they separated ways.Lets take an example -- A Smooth Fossil Transition: Pelycodus, a primate (click to see picture){abe}


(click to enlarge)
(Picture originally from A Smooth Fossil Transition: Pelycodus, a primate (click to see original picture) -- copied here to save bandwidth on the original site)
{/abe}I think we can agree that Pelycodus ralstoni evolved into Pelycodus trigonoodus which then evolved into Pelycodus jarrovii which then evolved into two species, Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus -- all by "micro"evolutionary changes, small changes where they remained essentially the same sort (kind) of organisms, yes?Is there any reason these two species at the end cannot diversify further? What is it and how does it operate? Do you have a clue what you are saying? You can call it "progressive" but that is only showing your human species egotism. What is it from the viewpoint of the bacteria? More food? This is the second or third time that you have refused to substantiate an assertion of yours. A young earth is NOT supported by facts, the facts show just the opposite, and until you can show that is not so you are making an assertion that is contradicted by the facts (ie -- you are just plain wrong). That is an assertion. You made an assertion, you failed to substantiate or to defend your assertion when challenged. You have done this again with the age of the earth. This is all your argument about "macro"evolution amounts to: an assertion on your part. I'll read it tonight just for fun, but you might want to post it to a new topic to see how well it stands up in the real world: anyone can post whatever they like on a website, there is no need for any of it to be true eh?So far all I have seen is one argument from incredulity and ignorance after another. Yawn.I have work to get to ... see you later.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : fixed linkEdited by RAZD, : added picture

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

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.

I read your essay and was not dissappointed. It is full of misconceptions and falsehoods, as well as being assertion after assertion with no foundation.Your comment on Lucy with the knee is typical of the lack of any care or attempt to find the truth of the statements you included. This has already been dealt with on the Lucy - fact or fraud? (click) thread, so I expect you either to:(1) Correct your essay accordingly (the honest thing to do) or
(2) Substantiate you claim -- on the linked thread, not here -- by providing actual evidence of professional misconduct by the scientists involved (the other honest thing to do) or
(3) Continue in your ignorance and incredulity to claim such falsehoods as if they were real (with some mistaken belief that you are somehow right to do so, no matter how dishonest it is)Your choice.Because of the several outright errors (and lack of scientific rigor displayed by it) in your website it cannot be used as a source of factual information, it is NOT evidence (except of your ignorance).Oh, yes, and your opinion is NOT evidence, and your repeated assertions of your opinion is NOT evidence.So: you have not presented any evidence yet to show that an accumulation of small changes over time results in the 'remarkable' differences that we humans consider different enough to characterize as {family} or larger taxon groups.You have specifically not presented any evidence of any mechanism that would in any way prevent further change from happening, whether at a genetic level or at a larger species selection level.So, as noted in Message 171, let's set some groundwork. Lets talk about simple speciation first - you agree that small changes do occur, what you call "changes in kind" or "micro"evolution, happens yes? - and let's start with this example - Pelycodus, a small primate mammal that shows gradual increases in size and then a splitting into two groups:

(click to enlarge)
(Picture originally from A Smooth Fossil Transition: Pelycodus, a primate (click to see original picture) -- copied here to save bandwidth on the original site)Do you or do you not agree that this is just normal speciation - that Pelycodus ralstoni evolved into Pelycodus trigonoodus which then evolved into Pelycodus jarrovii which then evolved into two species, Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus -- all by "micro"evolutionary changes, small changes where they remained essentially the same sort (kind) of organisms, yes?Do you agree that this is no different than "dog is dog" variations? If no why not?Once we have established the "micro"evolution aspects of the fossil record of events like this we can move on to the next level.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : added one lineEdited by RAZD, : fixed link

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

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.

We had a thread a while back that dealt with the issue of brain size and intelligence, the thread is titled "Bones of Contention"http://EvC Forum: Bones of Contentions. -->EvC Forum: Bones of Contentions.There is no relation within a species between brain size and intelligence because there are several other factors the also affect intelligence that are in no way related to relative sizes of brains in normally developed members of the species.This argument is easily falsified by comparing ID scores or other measures of intelligence with brain size -- no relationship has yet been shown that correlates between the two, the data is scattered.The intelligence in a species is more related to the surface area of the brain and the interconnectedness of the different portions.Smaller volume skulls contain brains that can still have the same or more surface area and can still have the same or better interconnections, thus removing the constraints of volume on individual intelligence compared to other individuals within the same species.Any argument based on brain size within the same species is therefore suspect.What we see in hominid development though is not just an increase in volume, but development of certain areas more than others -- areas that relate to what we call "higher" cognitive functions. This is where you see the evidence for the evolution of brain capacity.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

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.

Looks like this thread is devolving into "What is Wrong With SWC's Essay" so maybe we should take it a step at a time to show the logical fallacies and erroneous information. Ever wondered what an argument from incredulity looked like? This first paragraph is nothing but fluff and the assertion that the author actually knows something that the reader does not. As we shall see (if we haven't already) this is a false assumption.The outstanding falsehood here is that evolution is based on beliefs rather than the scientific study of evidence and the corroboration of theory by test after test after test.Thus the first paragraph is based on a false premise. Wrong again. We are talking about a science not a "popular belief" -- science based on factual evidence.Evolution is the theory of change in species over time. As time passes more changes will be accumulated. This is all that is necessary for evolution to be "true" (although theories are not ever regarded as "true" by scientists, just corroborated by evidence and repeated testing; theories can be invalidated at any time by new evidence, but "truth" cannot - by definition eh?).This is not a "belief" system -- let's look at the definition of Now lets look at the definition of No "belief" involved.Thus this is a mischaracterization of the science of evolution, it is a falsehood. One cannot expect a valid argument about a topic when the topic is defined incorrectly.Either the author does not understand the topic enough to define it properly, and thus will be unable to talk intelligently about it,Or the author is purposely misrepresenting the topic, and thus will misrepresent anything else he needs to in order to make whatever point he intends with such misrepresentation,Or the author is ignorant of the proper definition, and thus is likely to be ignorant of any other related issue,Or the author is deluded into thinking this is the truth, in which case his delusions will likely color any thing else he says.Based on just this part of the essay there is no reason to expect any valid argument from it.This is actually evidence of someone who is careless in what they say.Can such carelessness be defended?Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

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.