|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,483 Year: 3,740/9,624 Month: 611/974 Week: 224/276 Day: 64/34 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
So that we know that you're talking about the same thing that we're talking about. Just because you're using the same word, macroevolution, doesn't mean you using the same concept. For example, some people think macroevolution would be a dog giving birth to a cat. If they're thinking that the whole time we're talking about the real macroevolution, then the enitre discussion is going to be off.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10045 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Which one is it? And why would you need a definition from me when you have so many available to yourself?
Microevolution = change below the level of speciesMacroevolution = change at or above the level of species Is that simple enough?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Big_Al35
RAZD writes: Do you want to discuss those definitions* and see where you agree\disagree and why? Please define macro-evolution for me and maybe we can take it from there? That's starting from the top down rather than the bottom up, so we will then need to fill in the definitions that go into it, but here goes:
(A) The process of macroevolution involves forming a nested hierarchy by descent of new species from common ancestor populations, via the combination of divergent speciation and phyletic speciation, and thus resulting in an increase in the diversity of life. Simply put, the species that exist at a point in time are different from their ancestors, and there are new species compared to the ancestral populations. Note that a process is something that is ongoing, something that can be observed in some way, and not a theory. Note further that both these types of speciation have been observed in the natural world as well as in the fossil record. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : subtitleby our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi Big_Al35
Which one is it? ... They mean the same thing, but we can use the one I just gave you in message 108: what is macroevolution? for this discussion.
... And why would you need a definition from me when you have so many available to yourself? To make sure we are using the same meaning, and not just the same sounds. It is important in science to be specific about meanings of words used in order to communicate ideas clearly, and this is why it is important to use the scientific usages when discussing science. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : link changeby our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Big_Al35 Member (Idle past 822 days) Posts: 389 Joined: |
RAZD writes: Note that both these types of speciation have been observed in the natural world as well as in the fossil record. Just to clarify can you give me an example of this in the natural world? And furthermore, if it has been observed in the natural world does that mean it must be true?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2128 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
Just to clarify can you give me an example of this in the natural world? And furthermore, if it has been observed in the natural world does that mean it must be true?
You are a prime example. That you differ from your parents is microevolution. That you differ from your ape-like ancestors of a few million years ago is macroevolution.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Big_Al35 Member (Idle past 822 days) Posts: 389 Joined: |
Still waiting for that "observed" example or at least a definition of what you mean by observed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3735 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Big_Al35 writes:
What do you mean by 'waiting' and what would you consider an 'example' to be? Still waiting for that "observed" example or at least a definition of what you mean by observed.Also, can you clarify what you mean by 'still' and 'least'? "There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Big_Al35 writes: Still waiting for that "observed" example or at least a definition of what you mean by observed. If you accept that microevolution is evolution within a species, and that macroevolution is evolution beyond a species, then given that it takes many, many generations for macroevolution we have only directly observed macroevolution in very short-lived species, such as bacteria, fruit flies, etc. We have indirectly observed macroevolution in all of life through fossil and genetic evidence. Of course, if you instead define macroevolution as evolution beyond a kind and will claim that "it's still just a bacteria" or "it's still just a fruit fly" then you're using a different definition than everyone else, plus you're using a term with no definition ("kind"). We need to agree on definitions before providing examples makes sense. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kofh2u Member (Idle past 3842 days) Posts: 1162 From: phila., PA Joined: |
The recent experiments in Russia where they have been working with the fox is offered as evidence of an observable macroevolution into dogs which takes place so quickly that within a few generations the transformation would conceivably eliminate the oossibility of finding evidence of transitional forms between the two now different species.
This is what they speculate happened with the wolf into dogs evolution 20,000 years ago. The point being that it may be impossible to find the intermediate steps because the whole new species was seeded by only a few generations of the very very small initial population undergoing the transformation What we find a "million" years later is just this dog skeleton and the wolf skeleton, but none of the few dozens of intermediates.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2128 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Still waiting for that "observed" example or at least a definition of what you mean by observed.
No, what you are doing is trying to obfuscate the whole issue because you have chosen not to believe in evolution no matter what the evidence is. I gave you classic examples of microevolution and macroevolution, but you seem to require that they be directly "observed" and now you want to argue about the definition of "observed." Face it, evolution happened. The whole apes-to-humans scenario that paleontologists have described actually happened. Ancient tribal myths that say otherwise are inaccurate.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Still waiting for that "observed" example or at least a definition of what you mean by observed. You are the one who introduced the requirement that evolution be observed. So why don't you give us your definition. I suspect that your definition will require a time machine and that we will know that you are not participating in good faith. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison. Choose silence of all virtues, for by it you hear other men's imperfections, and conceal your own. George Bernard Shaw
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10045 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Still waiting for that "observed" example or at least a definition of what you mean by observed.
The one Coyote gave suffices. We observe that humans and chimps no longer interbreed. We also observe that humans and chimps share genetic markers that can only be explained by common ancestry. The differences between the human and chimp genome are consistent with the accumulation of mutations that are filtered through selection. So we have microevolution (mutation and selection) giving rise to macroevolution (separate species).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kofh2u Member (Idle past 3842 days) Posts: 1162 From: phila., PA Joined: |
Coyote:
No, what you are doing is trying to obfuscate the whole issue because you have chosen not to believe in evolution no matter what the evidence is.I gave you classic examples of microevolution and macroevolution, but you seem to require that they be directly "observed" and now you want to argue about the definition of "observed." Face it, evolution happened. The whole apes-to-humans scenario that paleontologists have described actually happened. Ancient tribal myths that say otherwise are inaccurate. ///........ You are right. The Bible people have dug a deep pit by opposing evolution so adamantly and organizing against it, as evidenced by laws concerning public education. But I believe the younger people will come to accept science as supportive of their faith in what Genesis says as they discuss this very matter with what are the Theistic Evolution Bible believers. This different take on Genesis makes scientific sense of what we read in the Bible.It postulates that the early audiences for Genesis would have necessarily ben spoon feed "baby food" about the ctual startling reality of what science is now telling us. That man has existed for 7 milluon years, or the Cosmnos is 13.5 billion years old is still hard for some people to grasp. Hints like stating that Adam live 950 years suggests to us now that "Adam" was a kind of humanoid, a species, and not an individual. Isaac Asimov, (author of "The Bible"), made the deduction that these inordinately long life spans that are mentioned in Genesis make sense as eponyms, or totem references to some original tribal or community head, which was used thereafter in referring to those peoples. The Bible actually is explicit in supporting what I write here, but the church has just not focused on this: Gen 5:2 says god called them, the man and his wife, the "Adamites,"... i.e.; a species: Gen 5:2 Male and female created he THEM; and blessed THEM, and called THEIR name Adam, (a species), in the day when THEY were created. Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vimesey Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 1398 From: Birmingham, England Joined: |
By "observed", do you mean "seen by the human eye" ?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024