Macroevolution: Its all around us...

Hey EZscience,What you've just mentioned I already knew, but the separation of gene pools does not support the process of macroevolution - because they're still of the same species. Unless there was observable evidence pointing towards a species "following an independent evolutionary trajectory" (and not just belonging to a separate gene pool), then I don't see how this benefits the theory of macroevolution in any significant way.

Please explain why you think that a separate gene pool isn't an "independnt evolutionary trajectory".Perhaps it would be useful for you to offer your understandings of those two terms.Once organisms are in a separate gene pool they are by definition following an independent evolutionary trajectory.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 05-27-2005 01:01 PM

By the biological species definition (reproductive isolation), they are *not* the same species anymore, even if they *look* identical. Divergence in traits is not necessary either, but it is generally inevitable over time.Take the example of 'sibling species'. Whne the Panama canal was built, it 're-connected' various species of fish that had been separated from one another by the isthmus of Panama for many thousands of years since its geolological formation. In many cases, these fish still 'looked' identical, so by your reasoning you would probably say they are still the same species. However, in most cases, despite being morphologically indistinguishable, these species could no longer interbreed. This means their descendents are now perpetually consigned to different evolutionary fates. Whether they still happen to 'look the same' at this point in time or not is completely irrelevant. The are different species that now have the potential, one day, to diverge further from one another and give rise to separate lineages. They can never become one species again. There are plenty of observations.
Besides, what else can you expect them to do but follow their own paths when they no longer constitute an interbreeding gene pool ? Nothing is linking them together any more. Two very well understood forces will inevitably move them apart: genetic drift and selection. You don't even need natural selection for this to happen. Fixation of alternative alleles at particular loci will occur purely by chance in the different populations and contribute to more and more differences over time. They would be expected to 'drift' apart purely by chance, and at a relatively constant rate over time. The calculation of 'molecular clocks' is based on this very prinicple, than non-conserved regions of the genome have relatively constant rates of base substitution over time.I still think you hold some misconceptions about macroevolution.
It is not a 'theory' per se - it is simply a terminology used to refer generally to the divergence of lineages, beginning with speciation.

Ok, maybe I caused some confusion with my wording (being involved with law enforcement, I don't come in contact with concepts like macroevolution every day). What I was referring to was any evidence that shows species (such as the Euro Corn Borers) crossing the boundary between kinds. The examples you've given are still operating within limits specified by the DNA of the particular organism.Maybe my definition of macroevolution is a little simplistic, but I take it from the dictionary definition of Large-scale evolution occurring over geologic time that results in the formation of new taxonomic groups. This is what I’m referring to when I say that the examples given previously have not given sufficient evidence to support the formation of new taxonomic groups. Speciation is in no way proof of evolution — just a reshuffling of what already existed. To quote a site I visited recently on speciation — there is no new genetic information, just the physical rearrangement of the genes on one chromosome technically called a 'chromosome translocation
You’ll find it here: Missing Link | Answers in Genesis I'm curious as to where evidence might be to support the notion that macroevolution will result in organic evolution from one kind to another. There is of course a limited amount of variation permitted within the permanently fixed kind, but that’s a separate issue from vertical transformation. Again, there’s no evidence to suggest the previous examples have strayed from their DNA confinements.As for macroevolution not being a theory — I can type it into a search engine now and come up with thousands of instances of it being referred to as exactly that; many of which are sites promoting evolution.

Then step 1 is for you to define "kind" in such a way that we can look at an arbitrary organism and decide what kind it is. Then we will be able to see if there are any examples of "crossing the boundary between kinds".Please also define "DNA confinement" and list the evidence for such a phenomenon.

I think it is obvious to all who are familiar with the evolution vs creation debate that there is a difference in opinions as to what exactly best defines a "kind". My definition is that of a species bound by the same DNA code barrier. Here's a link to show the exact complexity of defining "kind" between creationists and evolutionists.
Missing Link | Answers in Genesis As for the "DNA confinement" - that was merely another term for "the DNA code barrier" And you'll find that evidence here:
Page not found – Exchanged Life Discipleship

There is no such thing as 'kinds'. It is a meaningless concept of creationism without any scientific basis. So ? All evolutionary changes are constrained by the specifications of the DNA in particular organisms. Of course they have. A new species *is* a new taxonomic group. Species are the only biologically meaningful taxonomic group. All higher levels of taxononic distinction are arbitrarily defined. First you have speciation, then you have divergence of higher taxa as various species get increasingly different. The latter just occurs over a far longer time period and is thus not directly observable. Total crap. This whole 'no new information' hogwash has been flogged to death over in the ID forums. There are MANY ways a genome can incorporate 'new' information. Try to avoid sites that promote creationist disinformation if you really want to learn what science and evolution are about. Please define this 'permanently fixed kind' of which you speak. If evolution teaches us anything at all, it is that NOTHING is 'permanently fixed' in any form. No living things do. But their DNA can change. So what ? There are probably millions of people who lack basic understanding of macroevolution, or the ToE, but want to discourse at length on both simply because they are somehow offended by some of the inferences. Your job as a student (assuming that is the role you have selected) is to learn to discriminate the real information from the crap. That's really important because the crap is far more abundant out there than the real information.This message has been edited by EZscience, 05-27-2005 03:32 PM

Now I see the source of your confusion.
These sites are all totally bogus misrepresentations of evolutionary theory. They are 'designed to confuse', rather than to explain.
Trust me on this.I suggest you go here for some more reliable information.This message has been edited by EZscience, 05-27-2005 03:42 PM

Well, not really; nobody has yet come up with a userful definiton of a "kind". Nothing (yet) defines a "kind" at all. Circular reasoning. And not a useful defintiion. A useful,meaningful defintiion allows anyone to examine an arbitrary organism and assign it to a kind, or to examin any two arbitrary organisms and decide if they are the same or different kinds. Since there is no known "DNA coide barrier", your defnition is useless.Oh, and your reference is using circular reasoning too.Finally, evolution of new species has often been observed. Not much evidence there, lots of assertions. "No new genetic material can be added" is known to be false. "Mixing the available genetic code will produce variations in the trait but will not change into a completely different feature" is an unsupported assertion. The sugar beet example shows that a particular trait has a limit in one particular process, but does not show that all or even manytraits have limits, or that that particular trait could not be changed farther by another process. "When a trait is exaggerated beyond its natural limits, the species weakens and suffers from genetically induced diseases or vulnerability to disease" is another unsupported (and falsified by observations) assertion. "No evolutionary change (i.e. micro evolution) ever adds information to the genetic material" is another false statement; information is added by mutations no matter which if the many definitions of information you use (and I notice that your source carefully does not say which definition of information he is using). "For example, a microbe would need to somehow acquire enough information through millions of errorless mutations that added to its DNA, which would enable it to become a fish" betrays a total lack of understanding of evolution; populations evolve, not individuals, so all that is needed at each step is one beneficial mutation in one individual organism, while thousands of similar organisms die (or, more corectly, fail to reproduce) from detrimental mutations. I could write thousands of words off the top of my head on the errors on that short page ... you should look for a more trustworthy source.

To loop this thread back to the last truly seminal post: If this were the case, wouldn't it be worth doing a careful study of wing morphology in stick insects to see if such 'variations on a theme' exist that might possibly correspond to the ancestry inferred from the molecular data ?This message has been edited by EZscience, 05-28-2005 08:26 PM

Definitely! In fact a detailed comparative is exactly what I was initially suggesting although I was more interested in genetic rather than morphological comparison. Whiting states that the homology already observed between phasmid wings and those of other insects, given that the ancestral phasmid state is thought to be wingless, shows conservation of wing morphology over a wingless period of evolution.I suspect the limits of what can be gleaned from purely morphological data have been reached and only an analysis of the actual developmental program could tell us how conserved the wing is to the previous form. The variations on a theme don't have to be apparent in the final developed wing morphology.TTFN,WK

Could you please take each "bogus" point on the websites and explain why they are bogus?

There are two many divergent topics included in your request.
They don't fit under any one topic here and would take a long time to cover all of them.I suggest that you pick one or two that you like most and think are the strongest points made and find the threads which are most appropriate. You might also try searching or googling this site to find discussion on the topics. It is almost guarenteed that they have been discussed several times already.If there is not obvious fit then you might want to propose a new topic.

I think AdminNosy has this covered, but let me just add this.There are a lot of people out there with no scientific credentials whatsoever masquerading as scientists and trying to promote a very unscientific agenda with glossy websites. Any wacko with a server can set up a website these days. If you consider yourself a student, it is your duty to learn to recognize 'bogus' science for yourself.

I was refering to this website. Missing Link | Answers in Genesis Could you please pick one point that is "bogus" and explain why?This message has been edited by Siguiendo la verdad, 06-06-2005 12:57 PM