Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "Microevolution" vs. "macroevolution."
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 38 of 63 (301191)
04-05-2006 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Faith
04-03-2006 4:37 PM


Time and Intent
Faith writes:
Darwin changed the world by coming up with the mechanism that could possibly make macroevolution happen (even if as I said it is really no better as a mechanism for that purpose than domestic selection already was).
Natural selection was (and is) vastly superior to domestic breeding as a mechanism for "macroevolution" because of the roughly contemporaneous realization of the earth's great age and natural selection's lack of any need for purposeful direction: the time scale of domestic breeding is a blink of the eye compared to that of natural selection, and domestic breeders seek particular traits, not survivability in a changing environment, or new species.
Domestic breeding was (and remains) a useful illustration of how any selective force, whether natural and contingent or human-directed, can create genetic change, but the analogy ultimately fails at the boundaries of time and intentionality: time as described above, and intentionality because natural selection "seeks" nothing and domestic breeders do not seek to create new species but rather to modify traits within species.
The question of domestic breeding is more illuminating in the context of cultural evolution: the peoples of Eurasia found themselves surrounded by a bounty of readily domensticated animals and plants, in contrast to Africa and the Americas, and the Eurasian advantage encouraged the rise of larger populations, greater social complexity, formal agriculture, and related techologies.
Darwin's contribution, his great synthesis, was not only the idea of natural selection but the meticulous observations (the Galapagos finches which speciated rapidly as they inhabited the islands being among the most well known) which illustrated its effects and supported his theories.
This message has been edited by Omnivorous, 04-05-2006 02:43 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Faith, posted 04-03-2006 4:37 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Faith, posted 04-05-2006 6:38 PM Omnivorous has replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 40 of 63 (301344)
04-05-2006 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Faith
04-05-2006 6:38 PM


Re: Time and Intent
Of course, I continue to believe that deep time makes all the difference: only vast amounts of time turn the winds that blow across the earth into a force that can level mountains; only a great deal of time will turn my pitiful 401K contributions into an above-poverty-level retirement fund; only millions of years could permit the lion, the tiger, the leopard, the lynx, the bobcat and my three dear kitties to evolve from the ur-cat: once the former did not exist, but now they do; once the saber-toothed tiger existed, and now it does not. Deep time has turned seas into prairies and mountaintops, and savanna and jungle into oceans and artic ice. Given enough time, the work of giants can be done by the smallest hands.
When Darwin developed his theory of natural selection, he did not just hand us an untestable abstraction. Rather, he outlined a mechanism that could be tested by observations in nature via changing populations and extinctions, by observations of the fossil record which showed species that no longer exist and the lack of species that now do exist, and by the development of such powerful technologies as molecular genetics. Through these technologies we know that genetic novelty emerges in populations, and by observation we know that these novelties succeed or fail to varying degrees depending on the environment in which they are expressed.
Certainly, if we can manage to maintain a history-recording civilization long enough, we will have proof one way or another as to the reality of "macroevolution." I mean no disrespect when I say that the evidence is already overwhelming to anyone who has not rejected it out of hand for philosophical or theological reasons.
By the way, Omni, I still plan to send you some CDs from the theology class. Sorry it's taking so long. It may be three, it may be five.
No problem, Faith: I never doubted you would.
PS: Sorry to hear about your harrowing brush with death and glad you came through it.
Thanks--me too! Life seems even sweeter now. Maybe my guardian angel will protect me until I listen to your CDs...
I've been at that particular threshold more often than I care to remember: being a glass-half-full person, I consider myself extraordinarily fortunate to have survived so many times; though I sometimes am told, "You've had so much misfortune!", it has never seemed that way to me.
The experience of my mother's presence by my hospital bedside has been followed by a sense of peace about her death several years back that had eluded me--curiously enough, she died from the same problem I was experiencing. But she was nearly 80 and had already survived more than most.
This message has been edited by Omnivorous, 04-05-2006 07:49 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Faith, posted 04-05-2006 6:38 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Faith, posted 04-05-2006 8:38 PM Omnivorous has replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 46 of 63 (301603)
04-06-2006 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Faith
04-05-2006 8:38 PM


Re: Time and Intent
Hi, Faith. My work day got too hectic to reply this morning--I'll try to get back this evening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Faith, posted 04-05-2006 8:38 PM Faith has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 53 of 63 (301774)
04-06-2006 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Faith
04-05-2006 8:38 PM


Re: Time and Intent
Faith writes:
CAN, but excuse me if I have to say that I find the Flood sufficient explanation for the landscape changes you mention.
Yes, I know. But there is simply no evidence for a global flood ever occurring. Only the a priori demands of literalist Biblical faith can keep the idea alive at all.
And I have no problem at all explaining the fossils and the extinct species by the Flood, and the new "species" by microevolution.
I thought all creatures were aboard the Ark? Am I confused about that?
I see you are using quotes around "species"...do you not take the word to mean animals who only breed with others like them, and not with others?
There are many creatures in the fossil record that are not represented today: okay, they missed the boat. But when you say, 'and the new "species" by microevolution,' are you suggesting that microevolution produces change so great that the changed creatures cannot breed with their pre-change progenitors? If so, what is non-macro about that?
I know you guys think the evidence is there. I don't, and I didn't before I had a reason to "{reject} it out of hand for philosophical or theological reasons." Long answer but the point is no, I'm not dismissing it out of hand.
I understand what you say, but it seems to me that the correlation between your philosophical outlook, your prior doubts, and your present religious convictions remains clear.
Your skepticism is actually a radical skepticism of all science; no phenomena that require more than a human life span to transpire could ever meet your criteria. That you were the person who found the ToE incredible, and that you are the person who now finds a ~2000 year old book literally and perfectly true (even though you didn't before, and didn't witness the events it describes), are certainly connected.
Your current belief required a transcendent inner experience without external proofs; no external proof could ever persuade you otherwise, and no external proof will sway you with regard to the ToE.
But the connection between your early skepticism and your current frank disbelief in the ToE is not Christianity. It is you.
On another note, wondering if the experience of your mother's presence did anything to influence your ideas concerning the supernatural?
I remain agnostic about all things supernatural. I know what rich creations the mind is capable of under the influence of delirium, ascetic practices, drugs, etc. But the moment remains precious to me, whatever the source: she was a source of strength to me while she lived, and, whether because she lives on only in my heart or lives on elsewhere, she was again a source of strength to me after her death.
I suppose which is true matters, but the preciousness remains, whatever is true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Faith, posted 04-05-2006 8:38 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Faith, posted 04-07-2006 9:53 PM Omnivorous has not replied
 Message 60 by Admin, posted 04-08-2006 7:53 AM Omnivorous has 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