Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 82 (8871 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-14-2018 6:03 AM
214 online now:
caffeine, frako, Meddle, PaulK, Pressie (5 members, 209 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: paradigm of types
Post Volume:
Total: 841,910 Year: 16,733/29,783 Month: 721/1,956 Week: 224/331 Day: 2/98 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
910
11
121314Next
Author Topic:   Why creationist definitions of evolution are wrong, terribly wrong.
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19663
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 151 of 205 (547684)
02-21-2010 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Dr Jack
02-20-2010 6:33 AM


Futuyma's definition
Hi Mr Jack,

Just thought I'd throw this into the mix:

Windsor castle Message 16: In my old text by Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 2nd Ed., he gets right down to the definition of biological evolution on the second page of chapter 1. Futuyma says:

quote:
Thus biological (or organic) evolution is change in the properties of populations of organisms, or groups of such populations, over the course of generations.

Futuyma had previously explained that the properties about which he is speaking are are those "...in which there is hereditary transmission of characteristics, variation owing to mutation, and sorting of variation by several processes." To be a bit more terse, I learned many years ago that evolution is a change in allele frequencies in populations of organisms over generations.

Don't confuse this with theories of evolution. The above is not a theory. It is a definition that was arrived at during the formulation of the modern synthesis. Theories of evolution are explanations of observed phenomena that fit the above definition. For example, observed change without heredity is not evolution.

I note that this is not significantly different from my original formulation:

Evolution is the change in the frequencies of hereditary traits within breeding populations from generation to generation.

The above definition does not specifically mention natural selection either (as most "modern synthesis" definitions do not do), and only alludes to it in the further explanations of the definition terminology, and then he also includes mutation as equally critical.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by 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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Dr Jack, posted 02-20-2010 6:33 AM Dr Jack has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Dr Jack, posted 02-22-2010 8:00 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 53 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 152 of 205 (547742)
02-22-2010 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by RAZD
02-21-2010 5:32 PM


Re: Futuyma's definition
As I've said before, I'm not arguing that your definition is wrong per se but that you're equivocating on the meaning of evolution and doing so in a way that is unhelpful to the debate.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by RAZD, posted 02-21-2010 5:32 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6055
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 153 of 205 (547852)
02-23-2010 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Percy
02-12-2010 7:53 AM


Re: why use ANY wrong definition?
Hi Percy,

Sorry it took so long to get back to this as I have been very involved with one of my members that had terminal cancer and her family.

So to clear up things here is the complete definition of micro and macro evolution according to Berekely.

quote:

Defining Microevolution
Microevolution is evolution on a small scale—within a single population. That means narrowing our focus to one branch of the tree of life.
If you could zoom in on one branch of the tree of life scale—the insects, for example—you would see another phylogeny relating all the different insect lineages. If you continue to zoom in, selecting the branch representing beetles, you would see another phylogeny relating different beetle species. You could continue zooming in until you saw the relationships between beetle populations. Click on the button below to see this in action!
But how do you know when you’ve gotten to the population level?
Defining populations
For animals, it’s fairly easy to decide what a population is. It is a group of organisms that interbreed with each other—that is, they all share a gene pool. So for our species of beetle, that might be a group of individuals that all live on a particular mountaintop and are potential mates for one another.
Biologists who study evolution at this level define evolution as a change in gene frequency within a population.Berkeley
Definition: What is Macroevolution?
Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level. So instead of focusing on an individual beetle species, a macroevolutionary lens might require that we zoom out on the tree of life, to assess the diversity of the entire beetle clade and its position on the tree.
Macroevolution refers to evolution of groups larger than an individual species.
Macroevolution encompasses the grandest trends and transformations in evolution, such as the origin of mammals and the radiation of flowering plants. Macroevolutionary patterns are generally what we see when we look at the large-scale history of life.
It is not necessarily easy to “see” macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read. Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using all available evidence: geology, fossils, and living organisms.
Once we’ve figured out what evolutionary events have taken place, we try to figure out how they happened. Just as in microevolution, basic evolutionary mechanisms like mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection are at work and can help explain many large-scale patterns in the history of life.
The basic evolutionary mechanisms—mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection—can produce major evolutionary change if given enough time.
Mutation Gene Flow Genetic Drift + 3.8 billion years = Macroevolution Natural Selection
A process like mutation might seem too small-scale to influence a pattern as amazing as the beetle radiation, or as large as the difference between dogs and pine trees, but it’s not. Life on Earth has been accumulating mutations and passing them through the filter of natural selection for 3.8 billion years—more than enough time for evolutionary processes to produce its grand history.Berkeley

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Percy, posted 02-12-2010 7:53 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by RAZD, posted 02-23-2010 10:27 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 155 by Percy, posted 02-25-2010 7:39 AM ICANT has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19663
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 154 of 205 (547924)
02-23-2010 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by ICANT
02-23-2010 12:32 PM


Re: why use ANY wrong definition?
Hi ICANT, that's a little jumbled, especially at the end.

Mutation Gene Flow Genetic Drift + 3.8 billion years = Macroevolution Natural Selection

Is supposed to be:

quote:
Mutation
Gene Flow
Genetic Drift
Natural Selection + 3.8 billion years = Macroevolution

Note that there is no process present in that equation that is not in microevolution except the longer span of time: macroevolution is an accumulation of microevolution, as they say just before that:

quote:
The basic evolutionary mechanisms—mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection—can produce major evolutionary change if given enough time.

The word "can" is there because they don't have to, it is just as possible that some cyanobacteria remain happily as cyanobacteria after all that time.

I think you are reading too much emphasis into the word "transformation" (and personally I don't think they should have used it - "transition" would be better and more descriptive of what is going on, as "transitional" fossils are understood), as it gives the impression of individual organisms morphing into new forms.

quote:
Macroevolution refers to evolution of groups larger than an individual species.

This occurs by the simple formation of nested hierarchies with descent from common ancestors after speciation events: a species is a breeding population, when speciation occurs there is no longer a single species, but two (or more) and this is the generation of genera. Likewise when further speciation occurs, the genera become families. It is easier to envisage with clades, imho, as there is less confusion of what the different branches are - they are just lineages of descent from the common ancestor populations.

                         |
|
|
/ \
/ \
/ |
| / \
/ \ / \
/ | | |
| | | / \
/ \ | | / |
/ | | | | / \

At the top we have a single ancestor species population, at the bottom we have a "larger" group of descendant species, all related by common ancestry.

When we "zoom in" to a single species we can see evolution in process, as the species undergoes the change in proportions of hereditary traits in breeding population from generation to generation in response to ecological opportunities.

When we "zoom out" we see the effects of continual evolution in all species through time, we see specieation and increased diversity, we see the formation of nested hierarchies, and we see the formation of "groups larger than an individual species" that are related by descent from common ancestor populations.

This is macroevolution, and it has been observed.

In the process of this macroevolution the different branches are "transformed" generation by generation by microevolution until at the end they are different appearing than the ancestor population.

quote:
Macroevolution encompasses the grandest trends and transformations in evolution, such as the origin of mammals and the radiation of flowering plants. Macroevolutionary patterns are generally what we see when we look at the large-scale history of life.

This is where I think you go wrong in how you read what they are saying.

If we take the evolution of mammals as an example:

You can start here at REPTILOMORPHA:
http://www.palaeos.com/...nits/190Reptilomorpha/190.000.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REPTILOMORPHA

quote:
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Subphylum: Vertebrata
Superclass: Tetrapoda
Class: Amphibia sensu lato
Subclass: Labyrinthodontia
Superorder: Reptiliomorpha

Reptiliomorpha refers to reptile-like amphibians and the amniotes which evolved from them.

University of Bristol paleontologist Professor Michael J. Benton (2000, 2004) gives the following characteristics for the Reptiliomorpha:
• narrow premaxillae (less than half the skull width)
• vomers taper forward
• phalangeal formulae (number of joints in each toe) of foot 2.3.4.5.4–5


All descendants of reptiliomorphs are still reptiliomorphs.

SYNAPSIDA are descendants of reptiliomorphs:

http://www.palaeos.com/...es/Units/390Synapsida/390.000.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synapsid

quote:
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Subphylum: Vertebrata
Infraphylum: Gnathostomata
Superclass: Tetrapoda
(unranked) Amniota
Class: Reptilia
Subclass: Synapsida

Synapsids ('fused arch'), also known as theropsids ('beast face'), are a class of animals that includes mammals and everything closer to mammals than to other living amniotes.[1] The non-mammalian members are described as mammal-like reptiles in classical systematics,[2][3] but are referred to as "stem-mammals" or "proto-mammals" under cladistic terminology.[4] Synapsids evolved from basal amniotes and are one of the two major groups of the later amniotes, the other major group being the sauropsids (reptiles and birds).

Synapsids are characterized by having differentiated teeth. These include the canines, molars, and incisors. The trend towards differentiation is found in some labyrinthodonts and early anapsid reptilians in the form of enlargement of the first teeth on the maxilla, forming a form of proto-canines. This trait was subsequently lost in the Sauropsid line, but developed further in the synapsids. Early synapsids could have 2 or even 3 enlarged "canines", but in the therapsids, the pattern had settled to one canine in each upper jaw half. The lower canines developed later.

Most paleontologists hold fossilized jaw remains to be the distinguishing feature used to classify synapsids and reptiles. The jaw transition is a good classification tool as most other fossilized features that make a chronological progression from a reptile-like to a mammalian condition follow the progression of the jaw transition. The mandible, or lower jaw, consists of a single, tooth-bearing bone in mammals (the dentary), whereas the lower jaw of modern and prehistoric reptiles consists of a conglomeration of smaller bones (including the dentary, articular, and others).


All descendants of synapsids are still synapsids.

THERAPSIDA are descendants of synapsids:

http://www.palaeos.com/...s/Units/400Therapsida/400.000.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapsida

quote:
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Subphylum: Vertebrata
Class: Synapsida
Order: Therapsida *

Therapsida is a group of synapsids that includes mammals and their immediate evolutionary ancestors. Other than the mammals, all lineages of the therapsids are extinct, with the last known non-mammalian therapsids dying out in the Early Cretaceous period (146 Ma to 100 Ma).

Therapsids' temporal fenestrae are larger than those of the pelycosaurs. The jaws of therapsids are more complex and powerful, and the teeth are differentiated into frontal incisors for nipping, large lateral canines for puncturing and tearing, and molars for shearing and chopping food. Their legs are positioned more vertically beneath their bodies than are the sprawling legs of reptiles and pelycosaurs.


All descendants of therapsids are still therapsids.

CYNODONTIA are descendants of therapsids:

http://www.palaeos.com/...s/Units/410Cynodontia/410.000.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynodontia

quote:
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Synapsida
Order: Therapsida
Suborder: Cynodontia

Cynodontia or cynodonts ("dog teeth") are a taxon of therapsids endemic to all seven continents beginning during the Early Triassic 256 Ma.[1] This taxon includes modern mammals and their extinct close relatives. They were one of the most diverse groups of therapsids. They are named after their dog-like teeth.

Cynodonts have nearly all the characteristics of mammals. Their teeth were fully differentiated, the braincase bulged at the back of the head, and many of them walked in an upright manner. Cynodonts still laid eggs, as all Mesozoic proto-mammals probably did. Their temporal fenestrae were much larger than in its ancestors, and the widening of the zygomatic arch allowed for more robust jaw musculature supporting the evidence of a more mammal-like skull. They also have the secondary palate that other primitive therapsids lacked, except the therocephalians, who were the closest relatives of cynodonts. Their dentary was the largest bone in their lower jaw, as other smaller bones moved into the ears. They were probably warm-blooded, and covered in hair.


All descendants of cynodonts are still cynodonts.

MAMMALIFORMES are descendants of cynodonts:

http://www.palaeos.com/...ebrates/Units/Unit420/420.000.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammaliaformes

quote:
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Subphylum: Vertebrata
(unranked): Amniota
Class: Synapsida
(unranked): Mammaliaformes

Mammaliaformes ("mammal-shaped") is a clade that contains the mammals and their closest extinct relatives. Phylogenetically it is defined as a clade including the most recent common ancestor of Sinoconodon, morganuconodonts, docodonts, Monotremata, Marsupialia, Placentalia, extinct members of this clade, and all of its descendants.

Early mammaliforms were generally shrew-like in appearance and size, and most of their distinguishing characteristics were internal. In particular, the structure of the mammaliform (and mammal) jaw and arrangement of teeth is nearly unique. Instead of having many teeth that are frequently replaced, mammals have one set of baby teeth and later one set of adult teeth which fit together precisely.

Mammaliforms have several common structures. Most importantly, mammaliforms have highly specialized molars, with cusps and flat regions for grinding food. This system is also unique to mammals, although it seems to have evolved convergently in pre-mammals multiple times.

Lactation and fur, along with other characteristically mammalian features, are also thought to characterize the Mammaliaformes, but these traits are difficult to study in the fossil record. The fossilized remains of Castorocauda lutrasimilis are a unique exception.


All descendants of mammaliaformes are still mammaliaformes.

MAMMALS are descendants of mammaliaformes:

http://www.palaeos.com/...tes/Units/430Mammalia/430.100.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammal

quote:
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Subphylum: Vertebrata
Class: Mammalia

Mammals (formally Mammalia) are a class of vertebrate, air-breathing animals whose females are characterized by the possession of mammary glands while both males and females are characterized by sweat glands, hair and/or fur, three middle ear bones used in hearing, and a neocortex region in the brain.

Living mammal species can be identified by the presence of sweat glands, including those that are specialized to produce milk. However, other features are required when classifying fossils, since soft tissue glands and some other features are not visible in fossils. Paleontologists use a distinguishing feature that is shared by all living mammals (including monotremes), but is not present in any of the early Triassic synapsids: mammals use two bones for hearing that were used for eating by their ancestors. The earliest synapsids had a jaw joint composed of the articular (a small bone at the back of the lower jaw) and the quadrate (a small bone at the back of the upper jaw). Most reptiles including lizards, crocodilians, dinosaurs (and their descendants the birds) use this system, as did non-mammalian synapsids such as therapsids. Mammals have a different jaw joint, however, composed only of the dentary (the lower jaw bone which carries the teeth) and the squamosal (another small skull bone). In mammals the quadrate and articular bones have become the incus and malleus bones in the middle ear.

Mammals also have a double occipital condyle: they have two knobs at the base of the skull which fit into the topmost neck vertebra, and other vertebrates have a single occipital condyle.


All descendants of mammals are still mammals.

THERIA are descendants of mammals:

http://www.palaeos.com/...tes/Units/430Mammalia/430.500.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theria

quote:
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Subclass: Theria

Theria (pronounced /ˈθɪərɪə/, from the Greek θηρίον, wild beast) is a subclass of mammals[2] that give birth to live young without using a shelled egg, including both eutherians (placental mammals) and metatherians (marsupials and their ancestors).


All descendants of therians are still therians.

EUTHERIA are descendants of therians:

http://www.palaeos.com/...tes/Units/450Eutheria/450.000.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eutheria

quote:
Eutheria (Greek: "true beasts") are a group of mammals consisting of placental mammals plus all extinct mammals that are more closely related to living placentals (such as humans) than to living marsupials (such as kangaroos). They are distinguished from non-eutherians by various features of the feet, ankles, jaws and teeth. One of the major differences between placental and non-placental eutherians is that placentals lack epipubic bones, which are present in all other fossil and living mammals.

All descendants of eutherians are still eutherians (which are still therians, which are still mammals, which are still mammaliaformes, which are still cynodonts, which are still therapsids, which are still synapsids, which are still reptiliomorphs).

So we have gone from reptilian ancestors to placental mammals (which includes you and me and bears, but not alligators and kangaroos). In the process we see:

  • the jaw is transformed from a three bone structure to a single bone structure,
  • the teeth are transformed into different types,
  • the skull bones are transformed to create arches,
  • etc etc etc

But none of these transformations occur in a single species, or in a time frame that a typical life-span human could observe directly, they occur over geological time frames, and yet each stage is observed, each transition has a beginning stage, intermediate stages and final stages, and these stages are found in the fossil record. Thus the transformation (transition) of one ancestral form into a quite different modern form is observed in pieces, like the frozen images in a movie film, each picture frozen in mid action, and only when you run the film through the projector do you see the motion, the transformation, the transition in time.

Just because we cannot see\observe\document large scale transitions in real time does not mean that we can see\observe\document the evidence of large scale transitions that have occurred.

Enjoy

... I have been very involved with one of my members that had terminal cancer ...

Thank you for doing what you can. Certainly I can understand how much just a little help is appreciated.

Edited by RAZD, : clrty

Edited by RAZD, : reworded bits


we are limited in our ability to understand
by 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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by ICANT, posted 02-23-2010 12:32 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17861
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 155 of 205 (548050)
02-25-2010 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by ICANT
02-23-2010 12:32 PM


Re: why use ANY wrong definition?
Hi ICANT,

So now that you've cut-n-pasted what the Berkeley site actually says, I assume you understand that the definition you earlier claimed came from Berkeley ("Macro evolution is defined by Berekely as the changes above speciation") was in error. The phrase "changes above the species level" includes speciation. Your definition excludes speciation as part of macroevolution when it is actually the lowest rung on the ladder of macroevolutionary change.

Can we have an unequivocal answer from you about something for once? You understand you were wrong, right? And we're not going to see you introducing this erroneous claim about how Berkeley defines macroevolution into threads anymore, right?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by ICANT, posted 02-23-2010 12:32 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by ICANT, posted 02-26-2010 10:49 AM Percy has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6055
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 156 of 205 (548238)
02-26-2010 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by Percy
02-25-2010 7:39 AM


Re: why use ANY wrong definition?
Hi Percey,

Percey writes:

("Macro evolution is defined by Berekely as the changes above speciation") was in error.

I realize I left out the word generally. (generally=usually as a rule)

Your exception is that it includes microevolution which is not supported in the definition of Macroevolution.

In the second paragraph of the definition it says:

quote:
Macroevolution refers to evolution of groups larger than an individual species.

So it does not refer evolution at the species level.

Could you please point out to me where the definition says it covers microevolution?

In the third paragraph it says:

quote:
It is not necessarily easy to “see” macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read. Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using all available evidence: geology, fossils, and living organisms.

There are no firsthand accounts of macroevolutionary history.

There are firsthand accounts of microevolutionary history.

In paragraph 4 it says:

quote:
Once we’ve figured out what evolutionary events have taken place, we try to figure out how they happened.

There is no firsthand evidence so we have to figure it out in our little finite minds what has taken place. Then in our little finite minds we have to figure out how it happened.

In light of these statements in the definition of macroevolution could you explain to me how speciation is a part of macroevolution according to the complete definition of macroevolution by Berkeley.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Percy, posted 02-25-2010 7:39 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Wounded King, posted 02-26-2010 11:11 AM ICANT has responded
 Message 158 by Percy, posted 02-26-2010 12:00 PM ICANT has responded
 Message 165 by RAZD, posted 02-26-2010 9:29 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2043 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 157 of 205 (548243)
02-26-2010 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by ICANT
02-26-2010 10:49 AM


Re: why use ANY wrong definition?
In light of these statements in the definition of macroevolution could you explain to me how speciation is a part of macroevolution according to the complete definition of macroevolution by Berkeley.

You quote ...

Macroevolution refers to evolution of groups larger than an individual species.

When speciation occurs the product is 2 closely related individual species, this therefore is the evolution of groups larger than 1 individual species, QED.

If you look at the very next page from Berkeley 'Patterns', you will see that it includes speciation as one of the 4 patterns of macroevolution.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by ICANT, posted 02-26-2010 10:49 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by ICANT, posted 02-26-2010 12:20 PM Wounded King has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17861
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 158 of 205 (548248)
02-26-2010 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by ICANT
02-26-2010 10:49 AM


Re: why use ANY wrong definition?
ICANT writes:

In light of these statements in the definition of macroevolution could you explain to me how speciation is a part of macroevolution according to the complete definition of macroevolution by Berkeley.

I don't know that anyone can explain anything to you. You get an idea in your head, you dig in your heels, and that's about the end of it no matter what the facts are.

Look at it this way. If your interpretation is correct then speciation is neither microevolution or macroevolution. Now how much sense would that make?

Microevolution is evolution below the species level, in other words, change within species. Macroevolution is evolution at the species level and above, in other words, species evolving into new species, genera, and so forth.

I grant that the Berkeley website's explanation is not idiot proof.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by ICANT, posted 02-26-2010 10:49 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by ICANT, posted 02-26-2010 12:57 PM Percy has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6055
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 159 of 205 (548250)
02-26-2010 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Wounded King
02-26-2010 11:11 AM


Re: why use ANY wrong definition?
Hi WK,

Wounded King writes:

When speciation occurs the product is 2 closely related individual species, this therefore is the evolution of groups larger than 1 individual species, QED.

When we have speciation we have two species. Just as in my avatar, there are two species of horses as they are not breeding populations.

Now we have two species. Any changes in these two species is microevolution. Is it not?

How can speciation be the evolution of groups larger than speciation?

Wounded King writes:

If you look at the very next page from Berkeley 'Patterns', you will see that it includes speciation as one of the 4 patterns of macroevolution.

I am not disputing that speciation does not happen. It does.

I am disputing that macroevolution has taken place.

There is no firsthand evidence for such an event.

It only happened in the minds of men as they figured out what they thought happened and then figured out how they thought it happened.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Wounded King, posted 02-26-2010 11:11 AM Wounded King has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by DC85, posted 02-26-2010 6:43 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 167 by Wounded King, posted 02-27-2010 4:40 AM ICANT has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6055
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 160 of 205 (548253)
02-26-2010 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by Percy
02-26-2010 12:00 PM


Re: why use ANY wrong definition?
Hi Percy,

Percy writes:


I don't know that anyone can explain anything to you. You get an idea in your head, you dig in your heels, and that's about the end of it no matter what the facts are.

Look at it this way. If your interpretation is correct then speciation is neither microevolution or macroevolution. Now how much sense would that make?

I thought microevolution produced speciation.

Is that correct?

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Percy, posted 02-26-2010 12:00 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Percy, posted 02-26-2010 2:42 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 162 by Dr Jack, posted 02-26-2010 5:41 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17861
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 161 of 205 (548266)
02-26-2010 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by ICANT
02-26-2010 12:57 PM


Re: why use ANY wrong definition?
ICANT writes:

I thought microevolution produced speciation.

Is that correct?

No, that is not correct.

How can you forget that the mantra of creationists is, "We accept microevolution but not macroevolution. There can be change within a species, but one species cannot change into another."

AbE: Lots of microevolution (lots of accumulated change within a species) can eventually result in macroevolution (the accumulation of sufficient changes to result in a new species). Microevolution refers to the tiny changes that occur over the course of one or a few generations. Macroevolution refers to the large changes that can result from the accumulation of many microevolutionary changes.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Add AbE clarification.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by ICANT, posted 02-26-2010 12:57 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 53 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 162 of 205 (548303)
02-26-2010 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by ICANT
02-26-2010 12:57 PM


Re: why use ANY wrong definition?
I thought microevolution produced speciation.

Yes, that's correct: microevolution produces speciation, speciation is macroevolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by ICANT, posted 02-26-2010 12:57 PM ICANT has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by DC85, posted 02-26-2010 6:26 PM Dr Jack has responded

  
DC85
Member (Idle past 280 days)
Posts: 875
From: Richmond, Virginia USA
Joined: 05-06-2003


Message 163 of 205 (548310)
02-26-2010 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Dr Jack
02-26-2010 5:41 PM


Re: why use ANY wrong definition?

I thought microevolution produced speciation.

Yes, that's correct: microevolution produces speciation, speciation is macroevolution.

which means there is no such thing as microevolution and macroevolution just evolution
This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Dr Jack, posted 02-26-2010 5:41 PM Dr Jack has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Dr Jack, posted 02-27-2010 4:25 AM DC85 has responded

    
DC85
Member (Idle past 280 days)
Posts: 875
From: Richmond, Virginia USA
Joined: 05-06-2003


Message 164 of 205 (548311)
02-26-2010 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by ICANT
02-26-2010 12:20 PM


Re: why use ANY wrong definition?
Any changes in these two species is microevolution. Is it not?
since there is no such thing as microevolution I have no choice but to say no

How can speciation be the evolution of groups larger than speciation
make it simple for you a lot of micro makes macro That would small changes over a long period. That's just evolution.

I am not disputing that speciation does not happen. It does.

I am disputing that macroevolution has taken place.

There is no firsthand evidence for such an event.

of course there is the small changes you're calling "microevolution" and the fact we have different closely related species. PLEASE explain what stops these small changes in a secluded population from adding up and becoming a another species. Does God say one day "ok that's enough" ?

It only happened in the minds of men as they figured out what they thought happened and then figured out how they thought it happened.

Just like Creationism?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by ICANT, posted 02-26-2010 12:20 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19663
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 165 of 205 (548319)
02-26-2010 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by ICANT
02-26-2010 10:49 AM


Re: why use ANY wrong definition?
Hi ICANT, you need to look more closely.

Your exception is that it includes microevolution which is not supported in the definition of Macroevolution.
...
Could you please point out to me where the definition says it covers microevolution?

As I noted in Message 154:

quote:
quote:
Mutation
Gene Flow
Genetic Drift
Natural Selection + 3.8 billion years = Macroevolution

Note that there is no process present in that equation that is not in microevolution except the longer span of time: macroevolution is an accumulation of microevolution, as they say just before that:
quote:
The basic evolutionary mechanisms—mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection—can produce major evolutionary change if given enough time.


color bold italic added for emphasis.

Mutation, Gene Flow, Genetic Drift, and Natural Selection are all part of microevolution, the change in the proportions of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation in response to ecological opportunities:

microevolution + time = macroevolution

There is no other ingredient.

In light of these statements in the definition of macroevolution could you explain to me how speciation is a part of macroevolution according to the complete definition of macroevolution by Berkeley.

Again, as I said in Message 154:

quote:
It is easier to envisage with clades, imho, as there is less confusion of what the different branches are - they are just lineages of descent from the common ancestor populations.
                         |
|
|
/ \
/ \
/ |
| / \
/ \ / \
/ | | |
| | | / \
/ \ | | / |
/ | | | | / \

At the top we have a single ancestor species population, at the bottom we have a "larger" group of descendant species, all related by common ancestry.

This is macroevolution as defined and used by evolutionary biologist. This is macroevolution as defined and used by Berkeley. You have speciation and the formation of larger groups than the original species, as the clade that started with a single species is now a larger group that includes seven species. Without speciation, this increased diversity and the formation of larger groups would not occur, and you would only have one type of organism.

You can think of a species as tunneling through time, and when speciation occurs the tunnel branches, but all evolution occurs inside the tunnel within the breeding population occupying the tunnel at any one point along the various hereditary lineages.

                         a
|
|
|
/ \
/ \
/ |
| / \
/ \ / \
/ | | |
| | | / \
/ \ | | / |
/ | | | | / \
b c d e f g h

The difference between a & b is due to continuous evolution within all the breeding population generations that span the time between a & b.

The difference between a & c is due to continuous evolution within all the breeding population generations that span the time between a & c.
The difference between a & d is due to continuous evolution within all the breeding population generations that span the time between a & d.
The difference between a & e is due to continuous evolution within all the breeding population generations that span the time between a & e.
The difference between a & f is due to continuous evolution within all the breeding population generations that span the time between a & f.
The difference between a & g is due to continuous evolution within all the breeding population generations that span the time between a & g.
The difference between a & h is due to continuous evolution within all the breeding population generations that span the time between a & h.
...

The difference between b & c is due to different evolution occurring within each of the different breeding population's generations that span the time since the speciation split between the b & c populations.

The difference between b & d is due to different evolution occurring within each of the different breeding population's generations that span the time since the speciation split between the b (or c) & d populations. This has been underway for more generations than the different evolution between b & c, and thus can result in greater difference between b (or c) & d than we see between b & c.
The difference between b (or c or d) & e is due to different evolution occurring within each of the different breeding population's generations that span the time since the speciation split between the b (or c or d) & e populations. This has been underway for more generations than the different evolution between b (or c) & d, and thus can result in greater difference between b (or c or d) & e than we see between b (or c) & d or between b & c.

This is how diversity increases over time.

In addition to the seven species, we see the formation of several clades of groupings larger than species:


  • b & c form a clade
  • b, c & d form a clade
  • g & h form a clade
  • f, g & h form a clade
  • e, f, g & h form a clade

This pattern of nested hierarchies does not occur within the species envelope, it is only when you step back from the species level that you see this pattern develop.

Because of the longer time (greater number of generations) for different evolution to occur within the different lineages since the respective speciation events, we expect the possibility of:


  • more difference between d and either b or c than between b & c.
  • more difference between f and either g or h than between g & h.
  • more difference between e and either f, g or h than between f, g or h.
  • more difference between any of b, c or d and any of e, f, g or h.

This all that macroevolution involves: evolution within species, division of species by speciation, repeat, again and again and again ...

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : or


we are limited in our ability to understand
by 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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by ICANT, posted 02-26-2010 10:49 AM ICANT has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
910
11
121314Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018