Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,252 Year: 5,509/9,624 Month: 534/323 Week: 31/143 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution Logic
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 216 of 302 (320119)
06-10-2006 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Someone who cares
06-08-2006 10:40 PM


Re: age of the earth ... again?
No, it is supported by facts, but I won't mention them here. Perhaps I will go to those forums you mentioned a little later and support this claim.
I doubt it. So far you have run from any discussion of actual evidence for anything. And that when others provide the evidence -- your record of substantiating any assertion you have made is zero.
Why no response on my suggestion to talk about simple speciation with an example?
You do agree that small changes do occur, what you call "changes in kind" or "micro"evolution, happens yes?
I've suggested we start with a simple example - Pelycodus, a small primate mammal that shows gradual increases in size and then a splitting into two groups:


(click to enlarge)

(Picture originally from A Smooth Fossil Transition: Pelycodus, a primate (click to see original picture) -- copied here to save bandwidth on the original site)
Do you or do you not agree that this is just normal speciation - that Pelycodus ralstoni evolved into Pelycodus trigonoodus which then evolved into Pelycodus jarrovii which then evolved into two species, Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus -- all by "micro"evolutionary changes, small changes where they remained essentially the same sort (kind) of organisms, yes?
Do you agree that this is no different than "dog is dog" variations? If no why not?
Once we have established the "micro"evolution aspects of the fossil record of events like this we can move on to the next level.
Or are you afraid of what the evidence will show?
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 10:40 PM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by Someone who cares, posted 06-11-2006 12:48 AM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 217 of 302 (320123)
06-10-2006 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by Chiroptera
06-10-2006 6:49 PM


Re: The essay -- the problems start at the very beginning.
And protraying evolution as being common descent is making a strawman out of a molehill of incredulity eh?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Chiroptera, posted 06-10-2006 6:49 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by Someone who cares, posted 06-11-2006 12:50 AM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 227 of 302 (320220)
06-10-2006 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by Someone who cares
06-10-2006 7:28 PM


Re: "Macro"evolution still undefined.
Would you be willing to explain to me how tiny variations within the kind could accumulate to make a new kind?
Let's start with an example of simple speciation at a very basic level eh? One that I included in the post you replied to but didn't answer on:
RAZD writes:
Message 171Lets take an example -- A Smooth Fossil Transition: Pelycodus, a primate (click to see picture)


(click to enlarge)

(Picture originally from A Smooth Fossil Transition: Pelycodus, a primate (click to see original picture) -- copied here to save bandwidth on the original site)
I think we can agree that Pelycodus ralstoni evolved into Pelycodus trigonoodus which then evolved into Pelycodus jarrovii which then evolved into two species, Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus -- all by "micro"evolutionary changes, small changes where they remained essentially the same sort (kind) of organisms, yes?
Is there any reason these two species at the end cannot diversify further? What is it and how does it operate?
Is this any different than the variation we see in say dog varieties?
How have I been corected? I still repeat my claim, no one has yet shown me a transitional fossil that is undebatable, and no one can.
No one can keep you from denying evidence that is true. But what I was refering to specifically was you claim
SWC, msg 134 writes:
The fossil record shows that all of the creatures, taxons, families, etc. appear suddenly.
That has been refuted, whether you think so or not. Repeating this claim without providing any evidence that the previous appearance of fossils makes the claim invalid is not going to make you point any more valid, just more careless.
The other half that was quoted:
SWC, msg 134 writes:
It has no transitional forms to show us macroevolution.
Depends on you presenting a definition of "macro"evolution, which you have failed as yet to provide. Of course you are free to deny any evidence that does not fit your definition when you fail to provide a definition to work from. This is not 50 questions, it's science, so there is either evidence for your hypothesis or it is a groundless assertion of opinion. Again.
Because the fossil record does indeed have "sudden" appearances of all the kinds of creatures.
But there are also fossil records of cradual change in species over time so not ALL species appear suddenly as you claimed. I showed you one.
You are wrong, admit it and be honest.
You have also been told why we don't expect to see all transitions between species, that doesn't mean that there are NO examples of transitions between species, especially when that has been observed first hand.
Evolution happens. It is change in species over time. It has been observed.
Microevolution, what you just said about species changing is microevolution. But not the popular evolution belief, macroevolution. And yes, I have already gave my general definition from macroevolution, for what it WOULD be, please check back.
What is it? I can easily repeat and repeat that "evolution is the change in species over time" so you can easily debate my definition of evolution. Take the example of Pelycodus above -- they get bigger and bigger and bigger and then one group reverts back to the original size while another keeps getting bigger, the two groups separate, become different species.
You agree that this is what you call "micro"evolution yes?
I said I would support my claim later, in a more suitable thread, and you still attack me. Please, have patience. I have enough on my hands with only two threads! And the facts do support a young earth, I will show you later in the thread for it. As the administrator said, this thread has gone way off topic, you are promoting it to go even more off topic. Let us not do this. Specific topics will go to specific threads, as this young earth thing.
Fact: I directed you to a thread to discuss this matter at, so I am NOT trying to move this offtopic. Fact: you claim you have evidence but so far have failed to produce any. Fact: you have failed several times to subtantiate assertions you have made where the evidence is against you. Stop whining.
Evolution logic? No, evolution is not logical. A single cell, forming into a human, and everything else, by chance, randomly, unguided by a Higher Being, is not logical. It defies all logic.
How does it defy logic? Present the arguments, present the evidence. present SOMETHING other than bald repeated assertions.
And, btw, this " A single cell, forming into a human, and everything else, by chance, randomly, ..." is a strawman logical fallacy, so you are on the wrong side of a logical argument at the start.
The rest of the paragraph is an argument from incredulity, another logical fallacy.
To show that evolution is not logical you have to avoid logical fallacies or your argument is invalid before you even reach a conclusion. Like your "essay" is invalid because it is based on false information.
I didn't make an assertion. Please read over those posts. Someone said we cannot rely on AIG for information. I said, that I could use the same reasoning and say we cannot rely on TO.
Sorry, but until you actually show that this is the case it is nothing BUT an assertion. Ned offered to go one for one on it with you and you declined. AIG is unreliable because it has several errors on it's site, just as your "essay" is unreliable because of the many errors you have carelessly included.
Oh, right. I'm sure that those many sources I used mean nothing to you? The Bibliography, the Works Cited?
This is called the arguement from authority, another logical fallacy. Certainly you know the quote that the devil can cite scripture for his purpose eh?
But more to the point you can pad your bibliography with as many scientific papers and documents as you please, the arguement YOU make from them is still invalid if all you base it on is your personal incredulity, misunderstanding and ignorance.
Your first paragraph sets the tone of careless error and careless attention to detail.
So far you have not said one thing that is substantially different from your first few posts, and those were full of errors.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Someone who cares, posted 06-10-2006 7:28 PM Someone who cares has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 237 of 302 (320264)
06-10-2006 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by Someone who cares
06-10-2006 8:52 PM


Lucy's "knee" and Pelycodus "micro"evolution
Well, you know what? If you do indeed believe it is a false statement, then why don't you talk about it with the source of that statement? Because you see, I just gathered the information from many sources, and put it together.
In other words you admit to being careless in your assembling of information, and didn't bother to check the truth of the statements, but used the ones you liked.
So, I suggest, you send a letter or email or make a phone call, or something, directly to the source: Gish, Duane T. The Amazing Story of Creation from Science and the Bible El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1990, p.83. Ok?
Because that is YOUR job when you are using the information to make sure it is valid. It is also relatively easy to look at the actual evidence of what the claims made by the scientists were and see that "Galloping" Gish is (once again) an invalid source of information.
You are making the claim that your essay conveys the truth, so it is YOUR job to ensure that all statements in it are as factual as you can possibly determine. Obviously, by your own admission no less, you have not done that. That shows a careless disregard for the truth.
Go to the thread {Lucy - fact or fraud?}
http://EvC Forum: Lucy - fact or fraud? -->EvC Forum: Lucy - fact or fraud?
Look at the picture of the knee on message 15
EvC Forum: Lucy - fact or fraud?
and look the picture of the Lucy skeleton on message 6
EvC Forum: Lucy - fact or fraud?
Do you see the knee on the skeleton? Can you find a single scientific paper that describes it as being a part of the Lucy fossil?
I put a number after that statement in my essay, which tells you which source that information was from, so, problems would have to be directed to that source, not me. I didn't make up that statement.
That does not absolve you of the need to ensure that the source is valid information. That you "didn't make up the statement" is no excuse for repeating it.
What is the difference between making up a lie and repeating a lie as if it were true? Especially when your whole thesis is about telling the truth?
So: you have not presented any evidence yet ...
Actually, you are the one who should be doing that, not me.
ROFLOL. You don't have any. Thanks for admitting it. Now we can move on to the next item.
If your information is correct, then I can say, that the two species came about by variation within the kind. This is acceptable in my theory. As long as it is WITHIN the kind. Yes, variation does happen, within the kind.
Yes or no, stop equivocating.
As long as it is WITHIN the kind.
Can't you tell that from the evidence? They came from the same species: how can the NOT be "within the kind" eh? Or are you saying it is only evidence as long as they stay "within the kind" but if they change to be outside "the kind" it suddenly is no longer evidence? That would be a ridiculous logical howler eh?
The evidence is there, it is not fictional, but a real record of fossil evidence. This is what the fossil record shows, a gradual transition from one species into two similar related species that share the characteristics of their ancestors. The two end species are descendants of Pelycodus ralstoni based on the fossil evidence, they evolved from the same parent species.
Do you agree that this is an example of "micro"evloution:? Yes or no?
ps -- if you use {peek mode} for your replies you can copy the text with the formating for italics etcetera.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Someone who cares, posted 06-10-2006 8:52 PM Someone who cares has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 238 of 302 (320267)
06-10-2006 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Someone who cares
06-10-2006 8:57 PM


DNA "content" and the length of the genome
I didn't say the length of the genome. Just take the DNA content, which has more volume of DNA content?
Let me share jars amusement:
The length of the genome is from the listing of all the base pairs of all the DNA. The genome IS the content.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Someone who cares, posted 06-10-2006 8:57 PM Someone who cares has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 241 of 302 (320276)
06-10-2006 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by Wounded King
06-10-2006 10:06 PM


Tree of Life - Plant hyperbole
cool tree. click on any branch and it expands. shows the bush characteristic rather than old fashioned tree trunks and branches.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Wounded King, posted 06-10-2006 10:06 PM Wounded King has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 255 of 302 (320433)
06-11-2006 6:53 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by Someone who cares
06-11-2006 12:50 AM


Re: The essay -- the problems start at the very beginning.
I said evolution is the popular belief that a single cell or something simpler evolved into humans over time.
Evolution is not a belief, and it is not common descent.
So it's wrong on both counts. It's careless wording that misses the real definition of evolution.
Evolution is the change in species over time.
Common descent is a prediction of the theory, but it is not the theory. We see common descent happen, therefore the theory of species change over time is {tested\validated\corroborated}.
You word your essay as if you are an authority on the subject, but you get the definition of evolution wrong and you are careless about the truth of the facts that you use. You are not an expert, you use logical fallacies and incorrect information to reach invalid conclusions.
I assume you do it out of careless ignorance instead of intent, as if it was intentional then you would be a fraud and a liar, instead of just careless ignorance. I give you the benefit of the doubt on intent, but I expect you to learn that you have made some mistakes (several) and take the steps to correct them.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Someone who cares, posted 06-11-2006 12:50 AM Someone who cares has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 256 of 302 (320443)
06-11-2006 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 249 by Someone who cares
06-11-2006 12:38 AM


Re: The essay -- the problems start at the very beginning.
If it becomes too much of an issue, administrators and moderators, maybe I should propose a new thread for it?
Go to {Proposed New Topics}
http://EvC Forum: Proposed New Topics -->EvC Forum: Proposed New Topics
Click on the {New Topic} button, put in a title and paste your essay as the topic.
You can choose either {Coffeehouse} forum or {Is It Science} forum as a location for it.
{Is It Science} is closer to your claims for its {validity\content} but you will be expected to provide substantiating evidence there
{Coffeehouse} doesn't have the science threads requirements for substantiating evidence so you can make any number of unsubstantiated assertions you want there and ignore the fact that you don't have evidence to back them up.
Your call.
I was kind of writing it to an audience that was just fed evolution in public schools and didn't know what to believe.
Based on what level of authority on your part? You don't define evolution correctly and you describe it falsely as a belief instead of a science, and you are careless about the truth of statments that you incorporated from your sources.
No, evolution is a popular belief, I may even call it a religion. You may not call it that, but I do. Because you have yet to show me the factual evidence directly supporting evolution. I see evidence against it.
You are wrong. You can call it belief or religion if YOU want to, but that does not make it so, and that does not make the statements TRUE. You can deny the evidence and write about your denials, but that does not make the evidence go away or miraculously change and it does not make your statements TRUE.
You CLAIM to be writing about the thruth on this issue, when you are careless with definitions and meanings and evidence and logic.
Really? Did you know, that the chance for the first cell to form by chance is mathematically impossible? It takes faith to believe in something that is mathematically impossible...
PRATT. Impossible? Please read {the old improbable probability problem} thread
EvC Forum: the old improbable probability problem
Especially message 23
EvC Forum: the old improbable probability problem
You can provide whatever you think is substantiation for this latest assertion of yours on that thread.
Let me add an "Or."
Or the author has challenged many evolutionists in several forums to provide undebatable evidence directly in support of evolution, and they couldn't. And he did MUCH research, from MANY sources, and found that the evidence is actually against evolution. Thus he came to the conclusions that he did.
Because that is not the case. You have been given evidence that you deny, and you have not been exhaustive in your research, nor did you check the validity of the sources you used. The conclusions are based on false premises and logical fallacies and thus are not valid.
This is just another way of saying
Or the author is deluded into thinking this is the truth, in which case his delusions will likely color any thing else he says.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Someone who cares, posted 06-11-2006 12:38 AM Someone who cares has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 257 of 302 (320444)
06-11-2006 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 250 by Someone who cares
06-11-2006 12:48 AM


Re: age of the earth ... again?
Please take a look back at my numerous replies, I have supported many of my "assertions", to those who would ask. Like I said, many of my "assertions" are supported in my essay, and I don't want to repeat myself numerous times to many evolutionists on several forums. Just read it and you will see. Please.
I have looked and looked. All I see is argument from incredulity and ignorance and assertions following assertions.
I have made a reply! This again shows that you just skipped over my posts. Please look back, I replied to this issue earlier.
(1) Look at the time stamps on the posts.
mine that you are replying to:
Message 216 of 256
06*10*2006 06:53 PM
yours that first "replied" to this question:
Message 218 of 256
06*10*2006 07:28 PM
I'm not prescient.
(2) You didn't really answer the question but equivocated on it. It's a yes or no question.
Enjoy.
ps -- also see Message 260 on your lack of definition and Message 237 on you equivocating on the answer.
Note that threads are generally cut off at 300 posts, so we may need to take Pelycodus to a new thread if that happens.
Edited by RAZD, : added "first"
Edited by RAZD, : added ps

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Someone who cares, posted 06-11-2006 12:48 AM Someone who cares has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 260 of 302 (320464)
06-11-2006 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Someone who cares
06-08-2006 9:02 PM


definitions and their lack
To answer your complaint that you have posted a definition and I am ignoring it:
I would say macroevolution would have to be the evolution of big changes between family taxons or higher taxons
Why this is NOT a definition of "macro"evolution:
(1) Evolution is the change in species over time.
(a) To break this down into two types of evolution - "micro" and "macro" you have to distinguish what sets one type apart from the other: if both types of evolution are the same, the verbal distinction is artificial and irrelevant. That is not a definition.
(b) To distinguish between two types of evolution you need to define how each acts independently of the other so that the different types can be recognized. For instance, if we define "micro"evolution as {all change in species over time due to mutations of genes and natural selection} we have a mechanism that matches the observations of evolution and the change is species due to mutation and natural selection. If we define "macro"evolution as {any and all other forms of evolution} then you need to show
  • That other forms of evolution exist (ie - some mechanism other than mutation and natural selection causes changes in species over time), and
  • That there are examples of it -
otherwise the 'type' classifications are useless and irrelevant. Claiming that there are no examples of "macro"evolution, for instance, negates the second part here, and renders your distinction useless and irrelevant. That is not a definition.
(2) Taxons ...
(a) What we call "big changes" are purely human perceptions of sufficient accumulated change to say "wow, those are really different" but that are otherwise unremarkable from other changes as far as the species are concerned in relation to adaptation to their environments.
(b) Along with the perception that some species "are really different" from other species is the perception that some {groups} of species "are really different" from other {groups} of species, while species within the {group} are NOT "really different" enough to be (to humans) placed in different {groups}: horses and zebras are different, for example and they are both more different from rhinoceroses than from each other - so we classify them in the same genus, Equus (and the domestic horse is Equus caballus while the plains zebra is Equus quagga) while putting rhinoceroses in a different Family, Rhinocerotidae.
(c) This results in a nested hierarchy classification based purely on the perception of sufficient accumulated differences to draw lines at different {levels} between different {groups} of species.
(d) Thus what we call "family taxons or higher taxons" are the purely human abstracts where we say "this {group} of species are sufficiently different from that {group} of species that we'll give them a different {group} name" and the different levels of the taxon classification system are based on the perception of different {levels} of differences between {groups} of {subgroups}.
(3) Different {levels} of differences between {groups} of {subgroups} are predicted by evolution in the same way that common descent is predicted by evolution.
(a) Evolution predicts that the more time that elapses the more change will be accumulated by the descendant species, and thus the total amount of accumulated change between any two species will be roughly related to the time that has elapsed since they shared a parent (common ancestor) species.
(b) In the absence of any mechanism to stop changes from happening and accumulating within the populations of species, this holds for any definition of "micro"evolution that meets current observations of evolution that has occurred (as in {all change in species over time due to mutations of genes and natural selection} above).
(c) Genetics consistently confirms this general relationship of different accumulated levels of change over different periods of time. Genetic comparisons result in clades - different {levels} of differences between {groups} of {subgroups} - in a manner that is totally consistent with {all change in species over time due to mutations of genes and natural selection}.
To recap:
I would say macroevolution would have to be the evolution of big changes between family taxons or higher taxons
This is explained by plain vanilla evolution as observed, no "macro" distinction is needed to develop this pattern, so this lacks any valid useable descriptive meaning as a distinction within evolution.
A "definition" that lacks meaning is not a definition.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : added first line

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 9:02 PM Someone who cares has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 266 of 302 (320499)
06-11-2006 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by CK
06-11-2006 12:05 PM


Re: The essay -- the problems start at the very beginning.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by CK, posted 06-11-2006 12:05 PM CK has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 267 of 302 (320507)
06-11-2006 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by Percy
06-11-2006 11:57 AM


Re: bump for SWC
Not to quibble but .... (quibble quibble quibble )
You are making a distinction in your definitions that SWC has not made:
"micro"evolution is the individual changes in species over time (and space), each change is a separate "micro"evolutionary event. This represents short term trends and fluctuations (larger beaks or smaller beaks etc), the change that occurs before speciation takes place.
"macro"evolution is the accumulation of changes over long periods of time, thus "macro"evolution is not the {change in species over time due to mutation and natural selection} but the {accumulation of changes incorporated into species by "micro"evolution ... and natural selection}. This represents long term trends - the change that continues (by continued "micro" changes) to occur once speciation has been achieved.
By this measure the dividing line is speciation, and thus once we have observed changes beyond a single speciation event -- say a second speciation event -- then we would have observed "macro"evolution.
This definition provides a means to determine whether it has occurred or not.
Thanks.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Percy, posted 06-11-2006 11:57 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by Percy, posted 06-11-2006 4:10 PM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 270 of 302 (320582)
06-11-2006 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by arachnophilia
06-11-2006 4:25 PM


Re: bump for SWC
and any judge who disagrees is an activist judge because they "overreach" to disagree
Paranoid delusions are like that eh?

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by arachnophilia, posted 06-11-2006 4:25 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by arachnophilia, posted 06-11-2006 4:51 PM RAZD has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 273 of 302 (320610)
06-11-2006 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by Percy
06-11-2006 4:52 PM


Re: bump for SWC
To say nothing about the fact that if you are making a living selling shinola, you don't tell your marks that you are selling shinola. It's not just politics, it's a scam preying (heh) on the gullible.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Percy, posted 06-11-2006 4:52 PM Percy has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1521 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 278 of 302 (320968)
06-12-2006 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by Percy
06-11-2006 4:10 PM


the micro- macro- considerations of rubber ducks
I don't disagree with a thing you're saying. I just think it makes sense to approach each discussion at a level of detail that the other side has a prayer of understanding.
I dispair of making things so simple that they don't mean anything anymore. There has to be an element of education involved for all those who are ignorant of the facts, and part of education is stretching people. "Comfort education" is watching TV ... too much so in america anyway.
I've been thinking about those definitions I threw out above in response to your comments:
"micro"evolution is the individual changes in species over time (and space), each change is a separate "micro"evolutionary event. This represents short term trends and fluctuations (larger beaks or smaller beaks etc), the change that occurs before speciation takes place.
"macro"evolution is the accumulation of changes over long periods of time, thus "macro"evolution is not the {change in species over time due to mutation and natural selection} but the {accumulation of changes incorporated into species by "micro"evolution ... and natural selection}. This represents long term trends - the change that continues (by continued "micro" changes) to occur once speciation has been achieved.
The more I think about it, the more it seems to me that it's more than that, it's also the difference between application at different levels:
(1) the individual level -- each individual is conceived with it's basic kit of mutations and the fitness of the individual is tested to survive to live and breed, those with non-lethal mutations live, those without disabling mutations survive and grow, those without disadvantageous mutations - and maybe a bit of luck - breed. This is where continued mutation and adaptation occur.
(2) the population level -- the population is made up of individuals with a wide variety of mutations, adaptations and abilities, and the dynamics of interactions of the members of the population in reaction to the environmental pressures is where change versus stasis tendencies are selected, this is where the dynamics of the different adaptations and abilities come into play, whether for survival or for breeding. It can only act on the basis of the net accumulation of mutations that are available.
Of course with this definition of "macro"evolution we have many many samples of transitions, not just in fossils but in recent past -- certainly there have been records of sequential speciation events in the last couple of years to say nothing of in the last 2000.
Certainly my example of Pelycodus above would qualify as "macro"evolution by this definition, as there are several speciation transitions in that section of the record before they even come to the separation of species into two distinct branches - that while very similar at that time - become the founding species of two different genus categories, the next level up from species in the taxonomic classification system.
From A Smooth Fossil Transition: Pelycodus, a primate (the article):


(click to enlarge)

(Picture originally from A Smooth Fossil Transition: Pelycodus, a primate (click to see original picture) -- copied here to save bandwidth on the original site)
The numbers down the left hand side indicate the depth (in feet) at which each group of fossils was found. As is usual in geology, the diagram gives the data for the deepest (oldest) fossils at the bottom, and the upper (youngest) fossils at the top. The diagram covers about five million years.
The numbers across the bottom are a measure of body size. Each horizontal line shows the range of sizes that were found at that depth. The dark part of each line shows the average value, and the standard deviation around the average.
The dashed lines show the overall trend. The species at the bottom is Pelycodus ralstoni, but at the top we find two species, Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus. The two species later became even more distinct, and the descendants of nunienus are now labeled as genus Smilodectes instead of genus Notharctus.
Kingdom
Phylum
Class
Order
Family
Genus
Species

The other aspect I see in this distinction is that "micro"evolutionary changes do not of themselves prevent breeding so they are all incorporated into the pool of the population where they spread or not depending on their dynamics within the population, while "macro"evolutionary changes are those that {separate\differentiate} populations by their {ability\interest} to breed (or not), and that once two (or more) populations do not mix to breed there is no barrier to the gradual accumulation of change over time such that they can become significantly (to us) different.
We can liken this to groups of rubber duckies:
Scientists track rubber toys ...
Back in 1992, a violent storm tossed 20 containers of rubber duckies off the back of a cargo ship halfway between China and Seattle, and they were quickly presumed lost at sea. Instead, it appears the castaways embarked on an epic 11-year swim across three oceans and half the globe. Somehow, they stayed afloat through all magnitude of wind and wave, weathering several winters likely frozen in an arctic ice floe and enduring so many days of exposure their once bright yellow skin has been bleached white as bone.
And now their voyage may have brought them to the East Coast.
Remnants of the lost armada of bath toys, which also includes frogs, beavers and turtles ” nearly 29,000 in all ” are thought to be streaming down the New England seaboard right now. Although there are no confirmed sightings in the Atlantic yet, oceanographers who have documented the movement of flotsam and ice from the Pacific to the Atlantic via the Arctic Ocean are confident some of the ducks ended up over here. A breakaway flotilla of ducks is expected to make landfall in Britain soon as well.
As long as they are in a container their locations will remain very similar, but as soon as they are no longer constrained by the container small differences in wind and wave and current can cause populations to diverge to opposite ends of the earth.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by Percy, posted 06-11-2006 4:10 PM Percy 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