|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: The phrase "Evolution is a fact" | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Peepul Member (Idle past 5017 days) Posts: 206 Joined: |
"Macro", however, seems untestable , but is a perfectly reasonable set of inferences, deductions, and inductions from the facts. 'Macroevolution' cannot be observed directly, but it is testable, by reference to the expected results of 'macroevolution', for example - existence of intermediates in the fossil record.- similarities and differences between the genomes of organisms. - geographical distribution patterns of organisms and fossils. The evidence from these sources, and others, is actually very good. Bear in mind also that 'micro' evolution of the genes and 'micro' evolution of the phenotype are not necessarily closely correlated. What appear to be 'big' changes - such as significant changes in body plan - can be brought about by small genetic changes. And vice versa. I've used the quotes because scientists don't believe there is a fundamental difference or clear boundary between two types of evolution. If you think about it, there is clearly a series of genetic changes that could take us from any organism to any other - there is no 'barrier' there to any particular scale of evolution. This is not to say that all these paths are valid, or that in an individual case any of them are. But there is no theoretical difficulty that would lead scientists to divide up these two. Edited by Peepul, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peepul Member (Idle past 5017 days) Posts: 206 Joined: |
Since we can see speciation happen, we can observe macroevolution directly. Reproductive isolation, for example, is "macroevolution" since it is involved in speciation. We have observed reproductive isolation occur in as few as 13 generations Overall I take your point, Rrhain. However, I don't believe the occurrence of reproductive isolation after 13 generations would correspond to the use of the word macroevolution by creationists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peepul Member (Idle past 5017 days) Posts: 206 Joined: |
I guess the obvious question to ask here is what does the word "macroevolution" mean when used by creationists? Is it defined? Where is the dividing line between "macro" and "micro" evolution as conceived by creationsist? If creationists cannot define such a distinction why do they even think such a dividing line must exist? I wish it was possible to get a clear answer on that, but one has never been forthcoming.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peepul Member (Idle past 5017 days) Posts: 206 Joined: |
Since we don't let creationists define what "evolution" is (they seem to think it has something to do with the creation of the universe and the origin of life), why would we ever let them get away with defining what "macroevolution" is? Well, it's a term they defined themselves, and not one that science recognizes the need for, so I guess they have the right to say what they mean by it. Unfortunately what they mean by it isn't clear.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peepul Member (Idle past 5017 days) Posts: 206 Joined: |
Nosyned, thanks for the clarification
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peepul Member (Idle past 5017 days) Posts: 206 Joined: |
quote: There's strong evidence from the fossil record these for most of these transitions. The embryonic patterns of blood circulation in mammals go through a number of stages that are the same as embryonic blood circulation patterns in earlier groups. Fascinatingly the sequence embryos go through is - fish, amphibian, reptile, then finally mammal. Genetic analysis shows divergence of these groups on timeframes that align with the fossil record. 'Fossil' genes also indicate common descent. For example tooth genes in birds have been switched on experimentally. For a more recent example, humans have a large number of inactive genes related to the sense of smell. These are still in use by monkey species with which we shared a common ancestor. When we look at hierarchies developed by comparing genetic markers across different groups then they show common descent. This is done using statistical techniques that are tuned to spot common descent or its absence. Language hierarchies also show up as having common descent, hierarchies of cars for example do not. When we look at species on isolated islands, we often see 'radiation' of a groups to fill niches usually occupied (on the mainland) by other creatures. These species resemble species found on the nearest mainland, by and large. This fits perfectly with the idea of a founder population establishing itself on the island and then evolving to fill available niches. When we look at regions that have been separated recently by geographical barries, we find 'young' species that are different enough not to be able to interbreed, but are still very similar. These are all good evidence for descent with modification. Of course, God could have done things in exactly this way. We can't rule that out. However, no gap in science has ever been closed by identifying God as the solution. Not a single one. Not only that, but if God did it, he did it in exactly the way evolution would have done it. That's why science, rightly, does not consider special creation as a realistic alternative. Happy to discuss specifics on any of these.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peepul Member (Idle past 5017 days) Posts: 206 Joined: |
quote: Leaving aside your example (RAZD is capable of defending himself on this!), please cite some claims that ignore, obscure or blatantly misrepresent accepted laws of science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peepul Member (Idle past 5017 days) Posts: 206 Joined: |
quote: Evolution with a big E would definitely refer to biological evolution and not to anything else. But also the other kinds of evolution you mention don't fit the definition you suggest. Stellar evolution is just about the lifecycle of stars. There is not a consistent progression from disorder to order here. In fact, when stars collapse there is a massive increase in disorder. Cosmic evolution must in fact consistently lead from order to disorder, if we consider the universe as an entire isolated system. Otherwise we violate the second law of thermodynamics. And I mean really violate it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peepul Member (Idle past 5017 days) Posts: 206 Joined: |
quote: Archangel, can I take it that one of your fundamental problems with evolution is the claim made for an old earth? It's not quite clear that's what you mean, but I think it is.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024