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


Message 69 of 238 (590089)
11-05-2010 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by JRTjr
11-03-2010 11:37 PM


Defining Macroevolution first?
Hi JRTjr, welcome to the fray, if I haven't already said it.
I hope you are reading the replies and intend to return & respond at some point. Unfortunately it seems the major thrust of your OP has been obscured by the posts so far
I propose to dedicate a string to whether or not I can, using scientific methods, definitions, and evidences, disprove ‘Macro-Evolution’ {Also known as ‘Darwinian Evolution’ or ‘Natural selection’}.
It appears that you have some misconception about macroevolution. ‘Darwinian Evolution’ is a term commonly used by creationists to talk about microevolution, and natural selection is a part of ‘Darwinian Evolution’ and microevolution.
... when I say Macro-Evolution I am speaking only of a scale of analysis of evolution in separated gene pools. Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution, which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population. {Quoted from Wikipedia.org}
Another source for definitions about micro and macroevolution is:
The Process of Speciation
quote:
Definitions of Biological Evolution
We begin with two working definitions of biological evolution, which capture these two facets of genetics and differences among life forms. Then we will ask what is a species, and how does a species arise?
  • Definition 1:
    Changes in the genetic composition of a population with the passage of each generation
  • Definition 2:
    The gradual change of living things from one form into another over the course of time, the origin of species and lineages by descent of living forms from ancestral forms, and the generation of diversity
Note that the first definition emphasizes genetic change. It commonly is referred to as microevolution. The second definition emphasizes the appearance of new, physically distinct life forms that can be grouped with similar appearing life forms in a taxonomic hierarchy. It commonly is referred to as macroevolution.
A full explanation of evolution requires that we link these two levels. Can small, gradual change produce distinct species? How does it occur, and how do we decide when species are species? Hopefully you will see the connections by the end of these three lectures.
In science macroevolution is considered to have occurred when speciation occurs, where a parent population divides into two or more daughter populations that no longer interbreed.
Can you describe what you think occurs in macroevolution? Do you think something other than microevolution occurring in different populations of breeding organisms living in different ecologies results in different adaptations within the different populations? How much change is necessary for macroevolution to be demonstrated?
See MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it? for more on this topic.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : clrty

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 1 by JRTjr, posted 11-03-2010 11:37 PM JRTjr has not replied

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


Message 78 of 238 (590229)
11-06-2010 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Dr Adequate
11-06-2010 3:16 PM


copepods
Hi Dr Adequate
There is also an organism I've read about but can't presently find a reference for. It actually has a lens. And it has one photoreceptor on the end of a stalk. It waves the stalk about, and the lens is just the right shape ...
See Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy..., Message 4:
quote:

Copepod:

This is a little critter that (shown here as a larvae) has a single eye and a single photoreceptor ... and yet it has a lens.

Why would it have a lens with only one photoreceptor (that is basically an on\off signal processor)? Because the photoreceptor is at the end of a little stalk that can move back and forth and up and down, covering the area that a more complete retina would cover with this single sensor. The stalk dances for the light.

Copepods are predators and use this dancing eye to build up a picture of their surroundings in much the same way that a laser light show can produce an image with one dancing light, or a television can produce an image with a dancing beam (of course both examples are commonly used to expand the intelligence of their viewers ... or is it just for silly entertainment?).
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 76 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-06-2010 3:16 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-06-2010 10:43 PM RAZD has seen this message but 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