|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why creationist definitions of evolution are wrong, terribly wrong. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Mr Jack,
Just thought I'd throw this into the mix:
Windsor castle Message 16: In my old text by Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 2nd Ed., he gets right down to the definition of biological evolution on the second page of chapter 1. Futuyma says:
quote: Futuyma had previously explained that the properties about which he is speaking are are those "...in which there is hereditary transmission of characteristics, variation owing to mutation, and sorting of variation by several processes." To be a bit more terse, I learned many years ago that evolution is a change in allele frequencies in populations of organisms over generations. Don't confuse this with theories of evolution. The above is not a theory. It is a definition that was arrived at during the formulation of the modern synthesis. Theories of evolution are explanations of observed phenomena that fit the above definition. For example, observed change without heredity is not evolution. I note that this is not significantly different from my original formulation:
Evolution is the change in the frequencies of hereditary traits within breeding populations from generation to generation. The above definition does not specifically mention natural selection either (as most "modern synthesis" definitions do not do), and only alludes to it in the further explanations of the definition terminology, and then he also includes mutation as equally critical. Enjoy. 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
As I've said before, I'm not arguing that your definition is wrong per se but that you're equivocating on the meaning of evolution and doing so in a way that is unhelpful to the debate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Percy,
Sorry it took so long to get back to this as I have been very involved with one of my members that had terminal cancer and her family. So to clear up things here is the complete definition of micro and macro evolution according to Berekely.
quote: God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi ICANT, that's a little jumbled, especially at the end.
Mutation Gene Flow Genetic Drift + 3.8 billion years = Macroevolution Natural Selection Is supposed to be:
quote: Note that there is no process present in that equation that is not in microevolution except the longer span of time: macroevolution is an accumulation of microevolution, as they say just before that:
quote: The word "can" is there because they don't have to, it is just as possible that some cyanobacteria remain happily as cyanobacteria after all that time. I think you are reading too much emphasis into the word "transformation" (and personally I don't think they should have used it - "transition" would be better and more descriptive of what is going on, as "transitional" fossils are understood), as it gives the impression of individual organisms morphing into new forms.
quote: This occurs by the simple formation of nested hierarchies with descent from common ancestors after speciation events: a species is a breeding population, when speciation occurs there is no longer a single species, but two (or more) and this is the generation of genera. Likewise when further speciation occurs, the genera become families. It is easier to envisage with clades, imho, as there is less confusion of what the different branches are - they are just lineages of descent from the common ancestor populations.| At the top we have a single ancestor species population, at the bottom we have a "larger" group of descendant species, all related by common ancestry. When we "zoom in" to a single species we can see evolution in process, as the species undergoes the change in proportions of hereditary traits in breeding population from generation to generation in response to ecological opportunities. When we "zoom out" we see the effects of continual evolution in all species through time, we see specieation and increased diversity, we see the formation of nested hierarchies, and we see the formation of "groups larger than an individual species" that are related by descent from common ancestor populations. This is macroevolution, and it has been observed. In the process of this macroevolution the different branches are "transformed" generation by generation by microevolution until at the end they are different appearing than the ancestor population.
quote: This is where I think you go wrong in how you read what they are saying. If we take the evolution of mammals as an example: You can start here at REPTILOMORPHA:Palaeos: Page not found Reptiliomorpha - Wikipedia quote: All descendants of reptiliomorphs are still reptiliomorphs. SYNAPSIDA are descendants of reptiliomorphs: Palaeos: Page not foundSynapsid - Wikipedia quote: All descendants of synapsids are still synapsids. THERAPSIDA are descendants of synapsids: Palaeos: Page not foundTherapsid - Wikipedia quote: All descendants of therapsids are still therapsids. CYNODONTIA are descendants of therapsids: Palaeos: Page not foundCynodont - Wikipedia quote: All descendants of cynodonts are still cynodonts. MAMMALIFORMES are descendants of cynodonts: Palaeos: Page not foundMammaliaformes - Wikipedia quote: All descendants of mammaliaformes are still mammaliaformes. MAMMALS are descendants of mammaliaformes: Palaeos: Page not foundMammal - Wikipedia quote: All descendants of mammals are still mammals. THERIA are descendants of mammals: Palaeos: Page not foundTheria - Wikipedia quote: All descendants of therians are still therians. EUTHERIA are descendants of therians: Palaeos: Page not foundEutheria - Wikipedia quote: All descendants of eutherians are still eutherians (which are still therians, which are still mammals, which are still mammaliaformes, which are still cynodonts, which are still therapsids, which are still synapsids, which are still reptiliomorphs). So we have gone from reptilian ancestors to placental mammals (which includes you and me and bears, but not alligators and kangaroos). In the process we see:
But none of these transformations occur in a single species, or in a time frame that a typical life-span human could observe directly, they occur over geological time frames, and yet each stage is observed, each transition has a beginning stage, intermediate stages and final stages, and these stages are found in the fossil record. Thus the transformation (transition) of one ancestral form into a quite different modern form is observed in pieces, like the frozen images in a movie film, each picture frozen in mid action, and only when you run the film through the projector do you see the motion, the transformation, the transition in time. Just because we cannot see\observe\document large scale transitions in real time does not mean that we can see\observe\document the evidence of large scale transitions that have occurred. Enjoy
... I have been very involved with one of my members that had terminal cancer ... Thank you for doing what you can. Certainly I can understand how much just a little help is appreciated. Edited by RAZD, : clrty Edited by RAZD, : reworded bits 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Hi ICANT,
So now that you've cut-n-pasted what the Berkeley site actually says, I assume you understand that the definition you earlier claimed came from Berkeley ("Macro evolution is defined by Berekely as the changes above speciation") was in error. The phrase "changes above the species level" includes speciation. Your definition excludes speciation as part of macroevolution when it is actually the lowest rung on the ladder of macroevolutionary change. Can we have an unequivocal answer from you about something for once? You understand you were wrong, right? And we're not going to see you introducing this erroneous claim about how Berkeley defines macroevolution into threads anymore, right? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Percey,
Percey writes: ("Macro evolution is defined by Berekely as the changes above speciation") was in error. I realize I left out the word generally. (generally=usually as a rule) Your exception is that it includes microevolution which is not supported in the definition of Macroevolution. In the second paragraph of the definition it says:
quote: So it does not refer evolution at the species level. Could you please point out to me where the definition says it covers microevolution? In the third paragraph it says:
quote: There are no firsthand accounts of macroevolutionary history. There are firsthand accounts of microevolutionary history. In paragraph 4 it says:
quote: There is no firsthand evidence so we have to figure it out in our little finite minds what has taken place. Then in our little finite minds we have to figure out how it happened. In light of these statements in the definition of macroevolution could you explain to me how speciation is a part of macroevolution according to the complete definition of macroevolution by Berkeley. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
In light of these statements in the definition of macroevolution could you explain to me how speciation is a part of macroevolution according to the complete definition of macroevolution by Berkeley. You quote ...
Macroevolution refers to evolution of groups larger than an individual species. When speciation occurs the product is 2 closely related individual species, this therefore is the evolution of groups larger than 1 individual species, QED. If you look at the very next page from Berkeley 'Patterns', you will see that it includes speciation as one of the 4 patterns of macroevolution. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
ICANT writes: In light of these statements in the definition of macroevolution could you explain to me how speciation is a part of macroevolution according to the complete definition of macroevolution by Berkeley. I don't know that anyone can explain anything to you. You get an idea in your head, you dig in your heels, and that's about the end of it no matter what the facts are. Look at it this way. If your interpretation is correct then speciation is neither microevolution or macroevolution. Now how much sense would that make? Microevolution is evolution below the species level, in other words, change within species. Macroevolution is evolution at the species level and above, in other words, species evolving into new species, genera, and so forth. I grant that the Berkeley website's explanation is not idiot proof. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi WK,
Wounded King writes: When speciation occurs the product is 2 closely related individual species, this therefore is the evolution of groups larger than 1 individual species, QED. When we have speciation we have two species. Just as in my avatar, there are two species of horses as they are not breeding populations. Now we have two species. Any changes in these two species is microevolution. Is it not? How can speciation be the evolution of groups larger than speciation?
Wounded King writes: If you look at the very next page from Berkeley 'Patterns', you will see that it includes speciation as one of the 4 patterns of macroevolution. I am not disputing that speciation does not happen. It does. I am disputing that macroevolution has taken place. There is no firsthand evidence for such an event. It only happened in the minds of men as they figured out what they thought happened and then figured out how they thought it happened. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Percy,
Percy writes:
I don't know that anyone can explain anything to you. You get an idea in your head, you dig in your heels, and that's about the end of it no matter what the facts are. Look at it this way. If your interpretation is correct then speciation is neither microevolution or macroevolution. Now how much sense would that make? I thought microevolution produced speciation. Is that correct? God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
ICANT writes: I thought microevolution produced speciation. Is that correct? No, that is not correct. How can you forget that the mantra of creationists is, "We accept microevolution but not macroevolution. There can be change within a species, but one species cannot change into another." AbE: Lots of microevolution (lots of accumulated change within a species) can eventually result in macroevolution (the accumulation of sufficient changes to result in a new species). Microevolution refers to the tiny changes that occur over the course of one or a few generations. Macroevolution refers to the large changes that can result from the accumulation of many microevolutionary changes. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Add AbE clarification.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
I thought microevolution produced speciation. Yes, that's correct: microevolution produces speciation, speciation is macroevolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DC85 Member Posts: 876 From: Richmond, Virginia USA Joined: |
I thought microevolution produced speciation. Yes, that's correct: microevolution produces speciation, speciation is macroevolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DC85 Member Posts: 876 From: Richmond, Virginia USA Joined: |
Any changes in these two species is microevolution. Is it not? since there is no such thing as microevolution I have no choice but to say no
How can speciation be the evolution of groups larger than speciation make it simple for you a lot of micro makes macro That would small changes over a long period. That's just evolution.
I am not disputing that speciation does not happen. It does. of course there is the small changes you're calling "microevolution" and the fact we have different closely related species. PLEASE explain what stops these small changes in a secluded population from adding up and becoming a another species. Does God say one day "ok that's enough" ?
I am disputing that macroevolution has taken place. There is no firsthand evidence for such an event. It only happened in the minds of men as they figured out what they thought happened and then figured out how they thought it happened.
Just like Creationism?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi ICANT, you need to look more closely.
Your exception is that it includes microevolution which is not supported in the definition of Macroevolution. ... Could you please point out to me where the definition says it covers microevolution? As I noted in Message 154:
quote:color bold italic added for emphasis.quote:Note that there is no process present in that equation that is not in microevolution except the longer span of time: macroevolution is an accumulation of microevolution, as they say just before that: Mutation, Gene Flow, Genetic Drift, and Natural Selection are all part of microevolution, the change in the proportions of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation in response to ecological opportunities:
microevolution + time = macroevolution
There is no other ingredient.
In light of these statements in the definition of macroevolution could you explain to me how speciation is a part of macroevolution according to the complete definition of macroevolution by Berkeley. Again, as I said in Message 154:
quote: This is macroevolution as defined and used by evolutionary biologist. This is macroevolution as defined and used by Berkeley. You have speciation and the formation of larger groups than the original species, as the clade that started with a single species is now a larger group that includes seven species. Without speciation, this increased diversity and the formation of larger groups would not occur, and you would only have one type of organism. You can think of a species as tunneling through time, and when speciation occurs the tunnel branches, but all evolution occurs inside the tunnel within the breeding population occupying the tunnel at any one point along the various hereditary lineages. a The difference between a & b is due to continuous evolution within all the breeding population generations that span the time between a & b.
The difference between a & c is due to continuous evolution within all the breeding population generations that span the time between a & c.
...The difference between a & d is due to continuous evolution within all the breeding population generations that span the time between a & d.
The difference between a & e is due to continuous evolution within all the breeding population generations that span the time between a & e.
The difference between a & f is due to continuous evolution within all the breeding population generations that span the time between a & f.
The difference between a & g is due to continuous evolution within all the breeding population generations that span the time between a & g.
The difference between a & h is due to continuous evolution within all the breeding population generations that span the time between a & h.
The difference between b & c is due to different evolution occurring within each of the different breeding population's generations that span the time since the speciation split between the b & c populations.
The difference between b & d is due to different evolution occurring within each of the different breeding population's generations that span the time since the speciation split between the b (or c) & d populations. This has been underway for more generations than the different evolution between b & c, and thus can result in greater difference between b (or c) & d than we see between b & c.
The difference between b (or c or d) & e is due to different evolution occurring within each of the different breeding population's generations that span the time since the speciation split between the b (or c or d) & e populations. This has been underway for more generations than the different evolution between b (or c) & d, and thus can result in greater difference between b (or c or d) & e than we see between b (or c) & d or between b & c. This is how diversity increases over time. In addition to the seven species, we see the formation of several clades of groupings larger than species:
Because of the longer time (greater number of generations) for different evolution to occur within the different lineages since the respective speciation events, we expect the possibility of:
Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : or 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) • • •
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024