The way I see it is that the whole of nature disproves macro-evolution but not micro-evolution. We simply cannot directly observe macro-evolution and if someone could provide an example I would greatly appreciate it.
Do you mean all mechanisms of evolution that have been observed in the process of change in phenotype and genotype of a species population up to and including what is called "speciation" - using a standard biological species definition of non-breeding populations as a definition of species?
This would include mutation, genetic drift, and similar mechanisms to cause change, and selection by survival and breeding to match (adapt) environmental and sexual criteria?
This would include "natural selection" as observed in galapagos finches and peppered moths, etc, as well as known speciation events (especially in plants) as noted on talkorigins and accepted by AiG:
quote:This FAQ discusses several instances where speciation has been observed. It also discusses several issues related to speciation.
The descriptions of each observation come from the primary literature. I went back to this literature for two reasons. First, many of these observations are not discussed (or not discussed in much detail) in secondary sources such as reviews, texts and popular articles. Second, it is difficult, if not impossible, to evaluate what a piece of research actually established without looking at the methods and data. Secondary sources rarely give this information in any detail. Anyway, I have included only those observations that I have been able to find the original sources for.
I consider this FAQ incomplete. One reason for this is that I am still chasing references (I still have a list of over 115 to find). More important is the fact that observations of speciation are buried in papers on a number of topics.
quote:Arguments we think creationists should NOT use:
â€œNo new species have been produced.â€
This is not trueâ€”new species have been observed to form. In fact, rapid speciation is an important part of the creation model. But this speciation is within the â€œkind,â€ and involves no new genetic information.
For an evolutionary biologist, speciation is not a big deal, it is part of the normal everyday process, and thus is not remarkable for things like specific experiments or commentary on experiments.
For an AiG "mentored" Creationist, speciation is not a big deal because it is part of their model for populating the world with the diversity we see today from a core population of created species.
Thus the real issue is whether there was one species at the dawn of life on earth or several hundred(ish - creationists have never defined how many species were created, so this number is just a "bookmark" value for now), and that brings us to "macro"evolution.
Macro, as in complete change fronm one creature into another.
How much change and in what time-frame?
In one sense this occurs at the moment of speciation: one species has become another. They no longer interbreed because they are different.
Or do you need the accumulated change from, say, two speciation events, to show that change is continuous and necessarily divergent rather than convergent? That second generation daugther (grand-daughter) species are more different from the original parent species than the intermediate ones?
You talked about the change necessary to go from a dog to a cat: would you say that change from something that looks roughly like a dog (size, weight, posture etc) to something that is roughly like a modern horse would be sufficient change?
If not, why was dog to cat good enough for you? Seems to me like there is a noticeable difference there, but the real question is how much change is enough for you.
For time, are you expecting something in one generation? The same time-frame as speciation? Or longer?
Speciation does not occur in one generation, so expecting more change in less time is not reasonable, nor does it even come close to what evolution and biology use for the time frames of changes above species levels.
Notice that if you are not using words as defined and used in evolution and biology that you are no longer discussing evolution and biology and evolution but something else.
If you wish we can settle on "several generations" for now and discuss how many are involved later.
This may also involve a discussion on how much time is available -- the age of the earth question, and we can deal with that when it comes up.
So, are you going to make\agree to definitions that can be used to discuss these matters rationally or are we going to be arguing about moving definitions that change to suit arguments as they occur?