Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "Macro" vs "Micro" genetic "kind" mechanism?
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 211 of 248 (496700)
01-30-2009 1:39 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by IchiBan
01-29-2009 10:48 PM


Definitions of Macroevolution?
Hi again Ichiban,
Macro evolution has not been demonstrated, ... You are talking mechanisms that dont exist in nature.
One of the problems here is what is meant by "macroevolution" ... if Coyote is talking about speciation and you are talking about sudden transformation, then you will inevitably disagree ... while you can both be right.
see MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?:
quote:
Please define "macro"evolution - so we can be sure we are (a) talking about evolution and (b) we are talking about the same thing.
Also define "micro"evolution just to be sure we are talking about something different.
It should be easy eh?.
I'll just note that the definitions, as used in biological evolution science, are that "microevolution" is the evolution - the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation - that occurs within a species, while "macroevolution" is the development of a tree of common ancestry by speciation - the division of an ancestral population into two or more reproductively isolated daughter populations - (causing branches in the tree) and evolution - the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation - of each branch species independently of all the others.
References:
(1) Berkeley U. website, Evolution 101
(2) U. of Mich website, Evolution and the Process of Speciation and Evolution and Natural Selection
(3) Talk Origins website, What is Evolution? (references some other definitions)
Based on these definitions macroevolution involves speciation and microevolution, both of which are observed actual processes.
Of course, the fact that species have been observed also means that there is no genetic barrier to the development of new species as reproductively isolated sibling species continue to evolve along different paths within different ecologies.
Once you realize that this is what is meant by "micro" and "macro" within the science of evolutionary biology, and that no other mechanisms are necessary to explain the diversity of life we see - in the world around us, in history, in prehistory, in the fossil record and in the genetic record - then you may understand that there is no genetic barrier to macroevolution.
If you are going to argue a different definition for "macroevolution" (as many creationists do) then realize that you are talking about something else, something that may very well never have happened. However then you are not arguing against evolution, but that "other" definition.
Message 206
LOL! I know plenty about the "voluminous evidence" for macro-evolution. But okay not on this thread.
About the voluminous evidence for macro-evolution, that is a whole nuther topic on its own I guess. On that note, what would you define as substantiated fact when it comes to macro-evolution?
Speciation and nested hierarchies. These confirm macroevolution according to the usage of evolutionary biological science.
Again, if you are using a different definition of "macroevolution" then you are talking about something NOT{evolution}.
Enjoy.
... as you are new here, some posting tips:
type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy
or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote:
quotes are easy
also check out (help) links on any formating questions when in the reply window.
For other formating tips see Posting Tips
Edited by RAZD, : added response at end
Edited by RAZD, : ps

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


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by IchiBan, posted 01-29-2009 10:48 PM IchiBan has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 212 of 248 (496741)
01-30-2009 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by Coyote
01-30-2009 1:28 AM


Kinds
I am not 100 % sure but I'm pretty darned sure that the "kinds" issue is the end result of some history.
I think it is clear from the Bible that "kind" there means species. And I understand that is what it was taken as all through history up until around the mid 20th century.
Then things went a bit awry: speciation has been shown to occur. That is when the literalists got into a tizzy and their definition of "kind" moved up and down the taxonomic levels. In fact, they seem to have either learned that they mustn't define it too carefully so it can be falsified or want it at several levels at once: high so it is harder to show in a short time and low enough to separate the other apes and us.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Coyote, posted 01-30-2009 1:28 AM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by Dr Jack, posted 01-30-2009 9:22 AM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 214 by Modulous, posted 01-30-2009 1:30 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 213 of 248 (496746)
01-30-2009 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by NosyNed
01-30-2009 8:47 AM


Re: Kinds
I think it is clear from the Bible that "kind" there means species. And I understand that is what it was taken as all through history up until around the mid 20th century.
I don't think so, I think that 'kind' means exactly when we say kind, so each kind of animal was a division by whatever arbitary basis they considered, probably below the species level. After all, Genesis 7:14 says "They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort", which implies a division of cattle by breed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by NosyNed, posted 01-30-2009 8:47 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 214 of 248 (496774)
01-30-2009 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by NosyNed
01-30-2009 8:47 AM


iuxta species
I think it is clear from the Bible that "kind" there means species. And I understand that is what it was taken as all through history up until around the mid 20th century.
The word species is the Latin for 'kind', comparing KJV with the Latin Vulgate, part of Gen 1:25
quote:
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind
et fecit Deus bestias terrae iuxta species suas
but to be fair, the Latin sometimes used a different word for kind, part of Gen 6:20
quote:
Of fowls after their kind
de volucribus iuxta genus suum
Then people started trying to classify the species, or kinds, and the two sort of grew up together even as we stopped speaking Latin we still call them 'kinds' and give them Latin names. Naturally, when the evidence came in that these 'kinds' could become new 'kinds', it was all an atheist plot to muddy the issue. Kinds weren't kinds. I mean species weren't kinds, miyn were kinds -or bara min (the created kinds). If all else fails, stop using one old language and fall back on another.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by NosyNed, posted 01-30-2009 8:47 AM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by Meddle, posted 01-30-2009 2:17 PM Modulous has replied

  
Meddle
Member (Idle past 1271 days)
Posts: 179
From: Scotland
Joined: 05-08-2006


Message 215 of 248 (496779)
01-30-2009 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by Modulous
01-30-2009 1:30 PM


Re: iuxta species
quote:
Of fowls after their kind
de volucribus iuxta genus suum
Isn't the Latin for kind in this verse actually 'genus'? Iuxta appears in both Latin verses you quoted, and as far as I can tell means 'close to' so probably refers to after.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Modulous, posted 01-30-2009 1:30 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by Modulous, posted 01-30-2009 2:23 PM Meddle has not replied
 Message 218 by lyx2no, posted 01-30-2009 3:06 PM Meddle has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 216 of 248 (496780)
01-30-2009 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by Meddle
01-30-2009 2:17 PM


Re: iuxta species
Isn't the Latin for kind in this verse actually 'genus'?
yep -
iuxta species suas or 'after their own kind' is {basically} the same as iuxta genus suum.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Meddle, posted 01-30-2009 2:17 PM Meddle has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 217 of 248 (496782)
01-30-2009 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Coyote
01-30-2009 1:28 AM


Kinds
quote:
I'll have to take your word on that, as that's far outside my field.
All you have to do is read the Bible :-)
e.g. Genesis 6:20 {KJV)
20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.
Kinds of cattle ? Does that make sense if "kind" is at the taxonomic level of "family" ?
quote:
I am only going by what I have read on creationist websites and seen posted on threads like this. One example is:
What are the Genesis “kinds”? Baraminology”classification of created organisms

That seems to be pretty clear that the terminology was essentially invented by creationists.
In fact the issue is purely artificial. If a creationist accepts an evolutionary relationship it is "within kinds" if he does not it is "between kinds". The presumed limits on evolution are assumed to "explain" why the creationist is right. All the creationist is saying is that reality has to conform to his beliefs.
To show evolution between kinds you need to find a well-documented example of evolution that the creationist will refuse to accept (whale evolution is good) and get them to agree that it would be evolution between kinds. Then hope that he's open-minded enough to accept the evidence. (Good luck there).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Coyote, posted 01-30-2009 1:28 AM Coyote has not replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 218 of 248 (496784)
01-30-2009 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by Meddle
01-30-2009 2:17 PM


Re: iuxta species
iuxta as in iuxtapose or in a modern alphabet: juxtapose: next (latin) - place (french).

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Meddle, posted 01-30-2009 2:17 PM Meddle has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 219 of 248 (496793)
01-30-2009 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by IchiBan
01-29-2009 10:48 PM


Re: Convergent Evolution Invalidates Evolution Barrier
Hi, IchiBan.
Let me try to clarify this a little bit.
Change happens.
We know this: we have seen it happen. We have seen it happen in populations. We know that no individual has exactly the same genome as either of its parents, but rather, has a unique blending of the two parental genomes. We also know that there are many ways in which new changes are introduced into the genome.
This is a known, documented fact.
And, this is what we call "evolution" (or "microevolution," if you prefer).
It happens. We know it happens.
So, what do you expect from a population that has existed for many, many, many generations? Many, many, many changes, right? Because populations change over time, increasing the amount time increases the amount of change, yeah?
This is what we call a "null hypothesis." A null hypothesis is an explanation that holds true when nothing else is acting on the system. Then, we test all kinds of "alternate hypotheses," which are the "somethings else" that might be acting on the system, and, if a test uncovers no evidence for the alternate, we retain the null hypothesis as our explanation.
If you were to find something else that was acting on the system, we would have reason to question the universality of evolution. But, since no one has yet presented a "something else" that passes scientific testing, Coyote has no choice but to uphold the null hypothesis.
So, bring forth a tested hypothesis that prevents one "kind" from evolving into another "kind": this is the only way you can make evolution go away.

-Bluejay/Mantis/Thylacosmilus
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by IchiBan, posted 01-29-2009 10:48 PM IchiBan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by xongsmith, posted 01-30-2009 8:58 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 220 of 248 (496826)
01-30-2009 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by Blue Jay
01-30-2009 5:42 PM


Re: Convergent Evolution Invalidates Evolution Barrier
bluejay writes:
So, bring forth a tested hypothesis that prevents one "kind" from evolving into another "kind": this is the only way you can make evolution go away.
(Before the admins jump on me for all lowercase below, my
body weight can occasionally make a capital letter, but
only at the sacrifice of considerable time and accuracy.
Sorry in advance. i do use uppercase for emPHAsis)
...mmmmm....not quite the way i would have phrased that.
it might be ok for the purpose here, but leaves a big
"pounce" spot for creationists. so let me just state:
There is no way a Sea Urchin evolves into a Rhinoceros.
now, if i may engage in a small flight of fancy:
there is a remotely possible way that, over a very, very
long period of time, sea urchins gradually evolve into
various sea-urchinish daughter populations, and perhaps
one of these daughter populations branches into daughter
populations that are mobile with fin-like things and so
on and after billions of years later there might be
creatures using the accidently poorly reproduced fin-like
appendages that happens to work well on land from one
of these daughter population offshoots (the other accidently
poorly reproduced fin-like things mostly not working so well
on land for those offspring) and that millions of years
after that from one of these land offshoots, gosh darnit,
there might be a creature that looks amazingly like what
used to be, billions of years ago, what we know as a
rhinoceros -
but it wont be a rhinoceros. not at all.
it would just be another case of parallel evolution
filling an extremely similar ecological niche.
when scientists analyze its DNA they will find that this
creature is more closely related to the sea-urchin-looking
things that descended from our old ancient sea urchins
than to these other rhinoceros-looking things that
descended from the old rhinoceros species.
can you imagine their astonishment!
and then imagine their delight!
then, i suppose, if there are any creationists still
around, they will look at this beast and tell the
scientists they are all Daft - hey, it's a rhinoceros!
my King James, version MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
...
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMXCLIX,
says so right here: "rhinoceros kind".
however, in all probability, these sea-urchin-looking
descendents will look nothing like their ancestors and
these rhinoceros-looking descendents will look nothing
like theirs.
- xongsmith
Truth is often so much stranger than Fiction could
ever hope to be!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Blue Jay, posted 01-30-2009 5:42 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by Blue Jay, posted 01-31-2009 11:22 AM xongsmith has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 221 of 248 (496893)
01-31-2009 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by xongsmith
01-30-2009 8:58 PM


Re: Convergent Evolution Invalidates Evolution Barrier
Hi, Xongsmith. Welcome to EvC!
xongsmith writes:
Bluejay writes:
So, bring forth a tested hypothesis that prevents one "kind" from evolving into another "kind": this is the only way you can make evolution go away.
...mmmmm....not quite the way i would have phrased that. it might be ok for the purpose here, but leaves a big "pounce" spot for creationists.
You have a problem with creationists trying to do real science?
I'll have to disagree with you: I mean, what's the worst that could happen? They'll claim that they have scientific evidence against evolution? If they really do, we'll surely benefit from the new knowledge we gain. But, if they really don't, nothing will have changed.
Anyway, the whole point of this thread was to see if creationists would propose a mechanism that prevents evolution from creating distinct "kinds" from a single lineage.
-----
(P.S. I don't think the admins are going to worry too much about all lower case when you punctuate and write in legible English otherwise: they're pretty strict, but they're not unreasonably anal)

-Bluejay/Mantis/Thylacosmilus
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by xongsmith, posted 01-30-2009 8:58 PM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by xongsmith, posted 01-31-2009 8:36 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
IchiBan
Member (Idle past 4938 days)
Posts: 88
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 222 of 248 (496979)
01-31-2009 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by RAZD
01-30-2009 12:53 AM


Re: Convergent Evolution Invalidates Evolution Barrier
Macro-evolution as I see it has not been demonstrated, I will use the recent example of salamanders as a ring species from a few years ago to point that out.
However if you insist it is so, then I would suggest it is more correct to say that there is no known genetic barrier to macro-evolution that has been found to date rather than to say there is no such barrier that exists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by RAZD, posted 01-30-2009 12:53 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by xongsmith, posted 01-31-2009 9:01 PM IchiBan has not replied
 Message 225 by RAZD, posted 01-31-2009 9:12 PM IchiBan has replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 223 of 248 (496996)
01-31-2009 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by Blue Jay
01-31-2009 11:22 AM


Re: Convergent Evolution Invalidates Evolution Barrier
Bluejay writes:
You have a problem with creationists trying to do real science?
I'll have to disagree with you: I mean, what's the worst that could happen? They'll claim that they have scientific evidence against evolution? If they really do, we'll surely benefit from the new knowledge we gain. But, if they really don't, nothing will have changed.
Sorry - i think we are talking about different things?
(Aside: Yes, I would have a problem with Creationists trying to do real science, just as I would have a problem with a NASCAR mechanic performing brain surgery, but that's another day...)
it was how you phrased it:
...a tested hypothesis that prevents one "kind" from evolving into another "kind"...
i think you need to emphasize that the first "kind" has to be a manymanymanymanymany,many times over the ancestor of the second "kind".
my hyperbolic story took an absurd application of your challenge.
the YE Creationist is thinking 6000 years timeframe - everything is already here - nothing changes into anything else....
also your test is not practical, since none of us would ever live long enough to see the end, which is never.
perhaps you had an ulterior motive to get them all to go off somewhere and eagerly run this experiment to test the hypothesis, an experiment that takes infinity, just to get them out of the way and off our backs?

- xongsmith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Blue Jay, posted 01-31-2009 11:22 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by Blue Jay, posted 01-31-2009 9:40 PM xongsmith has not replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 224 of 248 (496999)
01-31-2009 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by IchiBan
01-31-2009 6:45 PM


Re: Convergent Evolution Invalidates Evolution Barrier
IchiBan writes:
Macro-evolution as I see it has not been demonstrated
well, if you cannot accept the eohippus story, developed painstakingly by career scientists who have devoted their entire professional lives on eliminating error and bias in their work, then we have more of a problem with you than with them. i know there are many fields of science where i have to throw up my hands and take their word for it.
we could insist that you read/study/learn more deeply from the textbooks all of the things that you would need to learn so that you may be able to understand how the scientists have come to their conclusions.
However if [..they..] insist it is so, then I would suggest it is more correct to say that there is no known genetic barrier to macro-evolution that has been found to date rather than to say there is no such barrier that exists.
well now this sounds much more reasonable. a well-couched phrase.
science uses that "not found to date" modifier many times. all of the currently widely accepted theories in science are certainly understood to include that little modifier "as far as we know to date".
(side note: how would i put in square backets themselves? is it just doubling up leftsquarebacket leftsquarebracket and so on? let me try: [[...]) -> oo the second one worked, so [...] should work. dang - now i forgot why i wanted to be able to do that - oh well.
WAIT I REMEMBERED WHY. and made the edit.
Edited by xongsmith, : remembered why

- xongsmith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by IchiBan, posted 01-31-2009 6:45 PM IchiBan has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 225 of 248 (497002)
01-31-2009 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by IchiBan
01-31-2009 6:45 PM


Re: Convergent Evolution Invalidates Evolution Barrier
Thank you Ichiban,
Macro-evolution as I see it has not been demonstrated, ...
I note that you have not provided an alternative definition for macroevolution to what I presented to you. Good, that means we agree on the term applying then to speciation and the formation of nested hierarchies of relationships, and not to any necessary large scale degree of change in either species.
And again, what your opinion is does not matter, it does not change reality, it does not cause speciation to suddenly stop or the fossil record to change.
This is speciation in the fossil record of Pelycodus:
Three different speciation branches from the main trunk, animals that went on to form basic types of primates, btw ... including humans.
... I will use the recent example of salamanders as a ring species from a few years ago to point that out.
Ring species are good example of incipient speciation, of finding the minimal difference necessary for division of a parent population into reproductively isolated daughter populations. There are other examples of more complete speciation, especially in plants.
However if you insist it is so, then I would suggest it is more correct to say that there is no known genetic barrier to macro-evolution that has been found to date rather than to say there is no such barrier that exists.
That there is no barrier is demonstrated by convergent species, like the sugar glider and the flying squirrel: nothing prevented them from evolving such similarity to fill a similar ecological niche.
What this means is that the concept of a barrier that would prevent such evolution is invalidated, demonstrated to be a false concept.
The sun has been found to be the central core of the solar system, around which the earth and the other planets orbit. We could say that this is only what has been observed to date, but that would be rather silly.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : silly

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


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by IchiBan, posted 01-31-2009 6:45 PM IchiBan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by Coyote, posted 01-31-2009 9:23 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 228 by IchiBan, posted 01-31-2009 10:46 PM RAZD has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024