Macro and Micro Evolution

You have been referring to the site without adding much of your own words or showing me how I should understand what they are saying. That makes it appear that you simply want me to read that material. That is why I misunderstood your intentions.You should also know (any you could see if you browsed a bunch of old threads) that we get 1 or 2 people through here a week who post references to such sites, say "HA, I knew this evolution stuff was all bunk!" and then leave as if they had made some overwhelmingly powerful points in the debate.I like to wait and see what someone is intending before getting too deep into it.

Moving on too, what are you confused about, wise one?Thank You
Sonic[This message has been edited by Sonic, 11-22-2003]

One such as myself? What is that? I'm simply an interested amateur.I tried to get some of the clearing up started with my earlier questions about complexity. Since it is your concept I would expect that you would clear it up. (I won't be too sneaky here, I have read material on it before. That material didn't seem to manage to explain it. I'm asking because I think if you dig you will find that the site you picked doesn't understand what they are talking about either.)I do happen to have my own ideas of what they are trying to say. I could tell you what that is and then show how that is utter rubbish. However, why should my idea of what they are saying count? I could very easily construct a strawman around what they are really saying, debunk that and say "see, rubbish!". What would that accomplish.Certainly taking some material like that and attempting to explain it to the completely dumb will enable you to understand it more thoroughly than you might any other way. I volunteer to be the dumbest student you can find. You could back up to my post 63, 67 and 70 and answer the questions I have there perhaps. Thanks.

quote:

---

You could back up to my post 63, 67 and 70 and answer the questions I have there perhaps. Thanks.

---

Maybe this will answer all of those questions in one sweep as the only question I can really find is one which you dont understand the distinction between micro and macro.

quote:

---

I see how I worded that poorly and you misunderstood. What I mean is what is the smallest gap between two living species would you consider to be across a 'macro' change boundary? From you dog example, I would presume that the difference between a fox and a dog would be 'macro' and uncrossable by evolution of the 'micro' type.

---

This understanding posted by you is correct, and in order for a fox to become a dog or vice versa you would need about 25-35 or more intermediates for the fossil record to suggest evolution of this catagory. You would also need the DNA record to support the idea for it to become factual, which we dont have today.Dont try and tell me no you would not, I say you would because, if you look at the skin color ratio today, it is obviouse to say that eather white or black was first, I believe the theory is that black was first and lead to white, but if you were to look at the people today you would find over 30-40 complexions between black and brown and the same for brown to white. with this principle in mind, I would expect to find the same information in the fossil record concering fossils but we dont we just find black brown then white for example, sure brown would be a intermediate fossil and sure we may only have 1% of the fossil record but that would suggest 1% of that 1% would be intermediate fossils atleast, but we are lucky if we have .1% of 1% intermediates. Which means that those .1% claimed intermediates are not intermediates. In otherwords the fossil record does not support evolution to the magnitude of macro-evolution. Then we have the dna record which reports a huge difference between man and ape and whatever else. To many differences to say that macro-evolution occured, Macroevolution is theoretical and a guess at best. (note: this conclusion of mine does not say that macro-evolution didn't occur it just exemplifies that I dont agree with it.)Thank You
Sonic[This message has been edited by Sonic, 11-22-2003]

I don't have time tonight to cover too much.However, you do know that you are in disagreement with at least some creationist organizations with you split between micro and macro don't you? As soon as you use the one you want you have to fit millions and millions of different things on the ark for the flood. For this reason some creationists have decided that there was a great deal of hyper fast evolution that you would call "macro" after the flood. This allows the ark to hold only a smaller number of "kinds".Here is one:
Caring for the Animals on the Ark | Answers in Genesis This argument has a "kind" being at about the genus level. Thus they would group the fox (Canis vulpis) and a dog together and a change between them would be micro evolution. Do you still want to stick to the species level you gave?

Interesting. The type of evolution which is explained in that article is still micro-evolution(i.e. breading of different species).Thank You
Sonic

Interesting. You were claiming that dogs to foxes would be macroevolution and impossible (actual evolutionary theory would say that they had a common ancestor).Now you say that "breeding new species" is just microevolution. And although foxes are not explicitly included in the "dog kind" in the referenced article they aren't so far off that there is clearly an unbridgeable gap.Perhaps you would like to explain why dogs to foxes would involve an unbridgeable gap.And when you're done with that you can explain why we find so many transitional fossils.

quote:

---

Evolution: a word that means "change" and that is why evolution is a fact, because change happends everyday.

---

Right, except that specifically, Biological Evolution is defined as "a change in the alelle frequency of a population over time."

quote:

---

Now the TOE on the other hand is not factual it is theoretical and according to you, even though their are many theories, all of these theories regarding evolution and how it occured are firmly represented with little to no gaps.

---

Incorrect.There is only one Theory of Evolution, currently referred to as the Modern Synthesis ever since the inclusion of Genetics.There are always gaps in our knowledge with every single scientific theory.However, the Theory of Evolution (descent with modification) has been tested and for a century and it has survived. However, scientists are still debating the exact mechanisms by which evolution happens. That is why we now know about gene flow, genetic drift, PunkEek, etc.

quote:

---

The TOE is represented better when explaining a theory which has many mechinisms. There are so far 2 theories which have many mechinisms that I know of: Macroevoltion and Microevolution.

---

Um, no. There is only one ToE.

quote:

---

Macroevolution has Biogenisis,

---

Quiz, in the other thread you agreed earlier in this very message that the ToE deals with life once it got here. So why do you then in the very next breath try to say that the ToE covers Biogenesis when you just agreed that it only covers life once it got here???

quote:

---

Acquired Characteristics,

---

Forbidden

quote:

---

The obsolete theory that offspring can inherit physical or behavioral characteristics from a parent that the parent acquired during its life. For example, a giraffe which stretches its neck to reach leaves at the top of a tall tree and thus ends up with a slightly longer neck can pass on the long neck trait so that its offspring also have long necks and can stretch it even longer. The theory, now known to be incorrect, was popularized by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) and played an important role in the history of the study of evolutionary biology.

---

quote:

---

Mutation and Recombinations, as the mechinisms, and might I say that all mechinisms of macroevolution are still in a theoretical state and none of them are factual.

---

So, are you saying that mutation and recombination are not facual, since they are mechanisms of evolution?Sorry, mutation and recombination are, in fact, the observed facts that Evolutionary Theory explains.

quote:

---

Remember that I understand theory is not just a guess.

---

Except that you are still terribly confused.See this site which deals with how science works:science - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com

quote:

---

Now their is also Microevolution which has, Natural Selection, Large Scale Phenotypic Changes, Sexual Selection, Genetic Drift, and a few others mechinisms that I didn't mention or may not know of.

---

No, these are all just parts of Evolutionary Theory.

quote:

---

The entire set of mechinisms for micro-evolution have moved from theory to factual were as all the mechinisms of macroevoltion have not become factual, which means their is gaps.

---

You are very confused.

quote:

---

What I am saying is, regardless of the proof, or what way you change words around, you still have those gaps and those gaps represent the reason why the theory is a theory.

---

When did anyone ever say that it wasn't a theory?

quote:

---

Alot macroevolutionists claim certain reasons why this or that occured, which make the understanding easier to understand to the point were people will accept it blindly, this blind act is what I like to call faith, this blind act is = to that "faith" in God.

---

Is the belief that germs cause disease and the belief that the Sun is the center of the solar system the same kind of faith as faith in God?

Sorry Sonice, you just contradicted what you posted earlier. A mateing between any dog breed still produces the same speicies not a new one. You said this was the most extreme case that was still micro. Now we have moved that extreme case up a notch. To the point where real "speciation" occurs. Do you now what to draw the line at at species only and not new genera? (btw, some other creationist sites disagree with that too)Ok, shall we move it up another notch. If we have a case where a new genus is created do we have macroevolution? If we have two things in the same genus are they the same biblical "kind"?How do we tell where the line is? Are you willing to agree with all of standard taxonomic classification? Do you have some other criteria?

Actually I think that the article is explicit in putting the line at the genus level. That means fox to dog is not unbrideagble (they are both Canis) which Sonice claimed was before.

I think it's unfortunate that this debate continues even after Quetzal's superb post #36. His explanation makes it clear that the macro/micro dichotomy is one that creationists exploit far beyond what is actually meant by these two terms.Personally, I hate the terms 'micro' and 'macro' evolution. I'm not sure who originated the terminology. If it was a biologist trying to make a useful distinction for laymen, his words have been taken completely out of the original context. My own suspicion is that it was a creationist writer trying to backpedal, faced with the observable change in populations that is the very basis of evolution through natural selection. Now we're stuck with this terminology, however misleading it is.Quetzal made it clear to everyone except Quiz and Sonic that 'micro' and 'macro' aren't two different kinds of evolution. One is supposed to refer to the change in allele frequency in populations, a phenomenon that can be observed in the lab and in the field. The other is used to refer to the large-scale morphological change that is manifest in the fossil record, the result of countless changes in individual populations, through which classifiers have to sytematize the biological record of common ancestry.Nay-sayers like Sonic make a lot out of the fact that macroevolution doesn't 'happen' like microevolution does. The expectation of seeing macroevolution in the lab is part and parcel of this gross misrepresentation. Sonic is saying, in essence, that we can't observe heat waves with a thermometer, only really hot days. Thus, he asserts that heat waves don't happen. The fact is that observable instances of changes in allele frequency are the basis of the observable large-scale diversity of life on Earth, just like a series of hot days constitute a heat wave.The dissenters here should point to a magic threshold beyond which a population's allele frequency never changes, since that seems to be the basis of their argument that changes in populations do not result over time in diversity in life forms. In addition, they should indicate what better explanation they have for the amazingly consistent patterns of change throughout the fossil record, since mere changes in allele frequency do not appear adequate to their objective scientific imaginations.------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

Other creationists put "kind" at family level which would include foxes and dogs as a single kind. You'd think that these "hard" limits are so hard to find.

Foxes and Dogs are in the same genus so they are now the same kind (and within 'micro' evolution) for Sonic (at least I think they are). He did start with them being different but now might have agreed they are not.Sonic that is way I asked you to define the difference. As I suspected you don't know what it is. Since you thought the dividing line was at the species level (but gave an example within species) and now have, apparently, moved up to genus it is clear that your first reference was wrong in the eyes of the other creationist reference. This is way I am asking for a definition of the split between micro and macro or, what amounts to the same thing, for a definition of 'kind'.I'll save you some time. If you start digging you will find that there is NO definition that can be used in any useful way. There are no criteria for drawing any lines that aren't violated somewhere else. Maybe I just haven't found it yet. But that's not my job. That's the job of those who want to support the idea that there is such a line. Good luck!

No, what I was saying is that if DOGS were to continue to bread inside their own species and become a fox, that would be macro-evolution and that I dont agree with.Thank You
Sonic[This message has been edited by Sonic, 11-23-2003]

OK do you disagree with it for scientific reasons or because your religion demands that you refuse to accetp the possibility.If you beleive for scientific reasons what are they ?