Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Best Evidence Macro-Evolution
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


(1)
Message 16 of 164 (654494)
03-01-2012 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by idscience
03-01-2012 8:20 PM


Re: Please define macroevolution first.
idscience writes:
Biologic origins: I am not aware of anyone who knows how first life began, do you?
What does that have to do with macro-evolution?
idscience writes:
Universe: Hawking believing that universes can create themselves from nothing because of laws like gravity exist, is an indicator to me that is pretty much up in the air.
And what does that have to do with macro-evolution?

Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by idscience, posted 03-01-2012 8:20 PM idscience has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 17 of 164 (654495)
03-01-2012 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by idscience
03-01-2012 8:32 PM


Re: Macroevolution is a fact.
Utter bullshit. Sorry but that is all you present.
Did you actually read what I wrote?
In case you missed it I'll repost it for you.
jar writes:
The best evidence of Macro Evolution as a fact is that we can look around us and see the diversity, and also look back in time and observe the fact that life forms changed over time.
The ONLY explanation that explains what we see is the Theory of Evolution.
There have been claims of "common design" but so far no evidence has ever been presented that supports the existence of any designer or of any model or method that designer might use.
Until that happens the idea of design should be put at the same standing as pixie dust.
Macroevolution is a fact supported by the diversity, and we can also look back in time and observe the fact that life forms changed over time.
Unless Intelligent Design presents a model and method the asserted Designer used as detailed and supported by evidence as the Theory of Evolution, and evidence of actual existence of the asserted Designer then it is of even less interesting than pixie dust.
It really is that simple.
How did the asserted designer do it?
Do you have ANY evidence of either the existence of the designer and of the method that the designer used? Was it little Vice Grip pliers or a wee little John Deere tractor? Maybe she used duct tape?
Until you present evidence of how the imagined designer did it you have nothing; not even pixie dust,

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by idscience, posted 03-01-2012 8:32 PM idscience has not replied

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


Message 18 of 164 (654496)
03-01-2012 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by idscience
03-01-2012 8:40 PM


so can you define macroevolution or not?
Hi idscience, thanks,
I would expect similar components and systems in organisms that don't seem to fit branches of the tree. Seemingly different unrelated creatures with common components would suggest a possible design. For example, an RFID for your car ignition, and the same controller for an industrial door lock. Very similar system or component but unrelated otherwise.
And are you aware of any evidence of such a shared component that is not due to common descent? Cite your sources for such evidence please.
Now can you define macroevolution?
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : subtitle

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 15 by idscience, posted 03-01-2012 8:40 PM idscience has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by idscience, posted 03-01-2012 11:14 PM RAZD has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(2)
Message 19 of 164 (654497)
03-01-2012 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by idscience
03-01-2012 8:40 PM


Evidence to Settle the Debate
Hi, idscience, I think I can speak to your point.
A research paper came out a few years ago, and when I presented it to creationists and ID proponents such as yourself, I found they had no response to it:
quote:
More Evidence of Evolution - Geomyidae and Geomydoecus
quote:
Consider the plight of the pubic lice. Pocket gophers construct individual tunnel systems which one gopher will habitate; individual gophers rarely meet except to mate. Their lice are specialized, physically, for clinging to the hairs of their host; they are not highly mobile on other terrain. As a result, gopher pubic lice rarely encounter disparate individuals except when their hosts meet to mate.
From an evolutionary perspective, these ecological realities mean that gophers and their lice should undergo speciation in response to the same events; thus, we should see a large degree of convergence between the evolutionary histories of these organisms as their unrelated lineages speciate in parallel. That this prediction from ecology is satisfied by genetics is further support of the accuracy of evolutionary models.
http://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?action=msg&f=5&t=751&m=1
I recommend you read the post, and the paper in Systematic Biology, in its entirety.
Now, obviously pocket gophers are nothing at all like public lice; gophers are mammals and public lice are insects. And moreover, the similarity here is not DNA sequences that you could somehow explain as the result of similar biologic function, but patterns of phylogenetic inheritance. The creationist perspective, of course, is that there is no such thing as phylogenetic data - that the patterns of inheritance and ancestry illuminated by DNA sequence comparisons are nothing more than noise, with no more significance than interpreting the shapes of clouds.
Geoyidae and Geomydoecus prove that this contention of creationists is 100% wrong. If phylogenies are noise, then they cannot possibly ever be congruent. This example of surprising congruence verifies the science of molecular phylogenetics (almost single-handedly, I would say) and phylogenetics proves evolution. To my mind, this single paper should have completely settled the debate. Needless to say I've not succeeded in getting a single creationist to even read it. Maybe you'll be the first?
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by idscience, posted 03-01-2012 8:40 PM idscience has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by idscience, posted 03-02-2012 2:13 AM crashfrog has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 20 of 164 (654498)
03-01-2012 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by idscience
03-01-2012 8:32 PM


Re: Macroevolution is a fact.
So for you, the best evidence is that the world has different varieties of life in it, and the fossil record pretty much shows us what we see today?
Oh my.
There isn't a big enough palm or a big enough face.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by idscience, posted 03-01-2012 8:32 PM idscience has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 21 of 164 (654499)
03-01-2012 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by idscience
03-01-2012 8:40 PM


Re: Got evidence or reasoning?
Nothing is being tested.
Evolution is being tested. By looking at the evidence, and seeing if it fits with the predictions of the theory.
This is what is known as "science".
I like it better than your way of vaguely rambling about stuff that you've clearly never bothered to study or tried to understand.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by idscience, posted 03-01-2012 8:40 PM idscience has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by idscience, posted 03-01-2012 10:47 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 22 of 164 (654500)
03-01-2012 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by idscience
03-01-2012 8:20 PM


Re: Please define macroevolution first.
Hi IDScience,
The origin of life and of the universe aren't the topic of this thread, but about the best evidence for macroevolution, doesn't ID share evolution's view? Michael Behe, one of the founders of the ID movement, believes that while random mutation and natural selection are sufficient for some things, they're inadequate for others. He believes that a designer steps in to make the necessary microbiological changes to help evolution over particularly difficult adaptational hurdles. He accepts the phylogenetic tree and macroevolution, he just thinks that a designer played a key role in their history.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by idscience, posted 03-01-2012 8:20 PM idscience has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by idscience, posted 03-01-2012 9:25 PM Percy has replied

  
idscience
Member (Idle past 4404 days)
Posts: 40
Joined: 03-01-2012


Message 23 of 164 (654502)
03-01-2012 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by RAZD
03-01-2012 8:29 PM


Re: Please define macroevolution first.
Not how it works
What are you talking about? Where are we a school yard? If you don't have anything that is ok.
Which has nothing to do with evolution, macro or micro, so we are getting the impression that you don't have a clue for what macroevolution is ....
I thought you were asking me for refs on my other statements as well. It was pretty clear in the response what the quote was for. If the intent of the reply was confusing to you, I may be talking to the wrong guy. If you want to dance, dance, but if you want a discussion, get serious.
The title of this thread is to find examples of macro-evolution defined anyway you like. Evidence outside of conjecture or inference from similarity. I have seen some pretty ambiguous definitions that cover just about any change over long periods of time at or above the species level. I am here for an education as a dissenter. If there is someone here who wants to play ball and not games, that would be grand.
If there isn't any outside the fossil record and homology, I would still like to know what convinces anyone here that variation of longer periods of time can produce vast increases of information leading to changes in body plans.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by RAZD, posted 03-01-2012 8:29 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by RAZD, posted 03-01-2012 9:41 PM idscience has not replied

  
idscience
Member (Idle past 4404 days)
Posts: 40
Joined: 03-01-2012


Message 24 of 164 (654504)
03-01-2012 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Percy
03-01-2012 9:01 PM


Re: Please define macroevolution first.
The origin of life and of the universe aren't the topic of this thread
Guys, is anyone reading the posts? The comment was that the only arguments between ID and evolution is macro-evolution.
Modern Evolutionary Synthesis states that an undirected process of random mutation along with natural selection is sufficient to produce completely new body plans. ID does not hold that this mechanism is sufficient. Natural selection as stated above is responsible for limited changes and that is non controversial. The increase of information needed to accomplish novel structures like limbs, new organs, and wings can not be accomplished by a step by step random mutation and selection process.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Percy, posted 03-01-2012 9:01 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Panda, posted 03-01-2012 9:29 PM idscience has not replied
 Message 26 by crashfrog, posted 03-01-2012 9:34 PM idscience has replied
 Message 27 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-01-2012 9:37 PM idscience has not replied
 Message 28 by Theodoric, posted 03-01-2012 9:37 PM idscience has not replied
 Message 30 by RAZD, posted 03-01-2012 9:54 PM idscience has not replied
 Message 75 by Percy, posted 03-02-2012 7:54 AM idscience has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 25 of 164 (654505)
03-01-2012 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by idscience
03-01-2012 9:25 PM


Re: Please define macroevolution first.
And you still have not provided a definition of 'macro-evolution'.

If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by idscience, posted 03-01-2012 9:25 PM idscience has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 26 of 164 (654506)
03-01-2012 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by idscience
03-01-2012 9:25 PM


Re: Please define macroevolution first.
The increase of information needed to accomplish novel structures like limbs, new organs, and wings can not be accomplished by a step by step random mutation and selection process.
Certainly it can, it has been observed that it can, and the overwhelming and unimpeachable evidence from molecular systematics (see my earlier post about Geomyidae and Geomydoecus) is that it has.
Random mutation, combined with natural selection, is more than adequate to produce all known biological features. The entire panoply of protein sequences in the living world inhabits such a small corner of the possibility space (that is, all possible combinations of all possible peptides) that it's mathematically possible to get from any one protein to any other by single residue substitutions via proteins that, at the very least, exhibit phosphate binding activity. That's mathematical proof that evolution is possible. Molecular phylogenies provide the proof that it did.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by idscience, posted 03-01-2012 9:25 PM idscience has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by idscience, posted 03-02-2012 1:29 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 27 of 164 (654507)
03-01-2012 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by idscience
03-01-2012 9:25 PM


Re: Please define macroevolution first.
Modern Evolutionary Synthesis states that an undirected process of random mutation along with natural selection is sufficient to produce completely new body plans. ID does not hold that this mechanism is sufficient. Natural selection as stated above is responsible for limited changes and that is non controversial. The increase of information needed to accomplish novel structures like limbs, new organs, and wings can not be accomplished by a step by step random mutation and selection process.
Well I know why you didn't even try to put up a shred of a scrap of a scintilla of an argument for that assertion. But do you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by idscience, posted 03-01-2012 9:25 PM idscience has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 28 of 164 (654508)
03-01-2012 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by idscience
03-01-2012 9:25 PM


idscience read PLEASE DEFINE MACROEVOLUTION FIRST
You have been told many times in a short period of time that until you give your definition of Macroevolution there can be no discussion. You may be arguing something that is not the same definition as we have. Actually I am quite sure you are. So either define it or take your trollish behaviour elsewhere.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by idscience, posted 03-01-2012 9:25 PM idscience has not replied

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


(3)
Message 29 of 164 (654509)
03-01-2012 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by idscience
03-01-2012 9:13 PM


Re: Please define macroevolution first.
Hi idscience, why do you keep avoiding the question?
The title of this thread is to find examples of macro-evolution ...
And my first response to you (before this thread was promoted) was on the The Death Knell for ID? thread:
Best Evidence Macro-Evolution: The only disputed ground between evolution and ID is macro-evolution. Micro is a fact and is agreed upon, origins, well, no one has any answers there, so no arguments. That leaves natural selection acting on random mutations to get us to novel body plans.
Can you define macroevolution as it is used in biology\evolution\science? This is important so that we are talking about the same thing.
Provide a reference so we can check your source.
My second response to you, the first on this thread was:
Message 5: What is macroevolution?
A definition used by science (biology, evolution) please, along with a reference so we can check your sources.
Again, what is macroevolution?
We need you to define this so that we know if we are talking about the same thing.
Again, what is your definition, and what do you expect to see for evidence to meet your definition? Then we will review your definition to see how it matches what is used in science, and then we can see if your expectations are based on a false definition or not.
If you don't have a definition then nothing we can show you will satisfy that definition, capiche? This is an old creationist trick to keep dodging the issue, it is deceptive and dishonest. I would not like to think that you are deceptive or dishonest. I am going for ignorant as a possibility at this point, seeing as you can't seem to provide a definition to answer my several requests for it.
Message 12: Not how it works: you made an assertion. In order to be able to discuss whether or not it is a valid assertion we need to know if you understand what you are talking about.
You need to provide the definition of macroevolution. With references so that we can check them.
Otherwise we can be talking at cross-purposes.
So step up: define macroevolution.
We start with your definition.
So what's your definition of macroevolution?
The title of this thread is to find examples of macro-evolution defined anyway you like.
Macroevolution is the sun appearing to rise in the east. We see evidence of this everyday, therefore macroevolution defined anyway I like occurs and is a fact.
Are you satisfied? Or are you going to give us your definition of macroevolution so we can discuss (a) how valid it is (cite your references) and (b) whether or not it could occur via evolution (ie - it is a testable concept) and then (c) whether or not it has occurred.
Message 18: Now can you define macroevolution?
We've identified a test to differentiate common design from common descent, and we can move forward on that, but first we still need your definition of macroevolution.
It should be easy to do.
For instance, I'll define microevolution (seeing as you agree completely with this process):
Microevolution is the change in the frequency distribution and composition of hereditary traits within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities.
Mutation can cause change in the composition of hereditary traits carried by individuals of a breeding population, but not all mutations do so. In addition there are many different kinds of mutations and they have different effects (from small to large).
Natural Selection and Neutral Drift can cause change in the distribution of hereditary traits within the breeding population, but they are not the only mechanism that does so.
The ecological challenges and opportunities change when the environment changes, the breeding population evolves, other organisms within the ecology evolve, migrations change the mixture of organisms within the ecology, or a breeding population migrates into a new ecology. These changes can result in different survival and reproductive challenges and opportunities, affecting selection pressure, perhaps causing speciation, perhaps causing extinction.
This has been observed in the lab, in the field, in DNA records and in fossil records, so we can agree that it is a fact that microevolution occurs, yes?
Now it's your turn:
Macroevolution is ...
If you can't define macroevolution, then I will assume that you have no idea what you are talking about.
What are you talking about? Where are we a school yard? If you don't have anything that is ok.
It's the rules of debate: if you make an assertion you need to defend it.
The first thing you need to defend is that you know what you are talking about, and you do this by defining what macroevolution is, cite sources where we can verify this as a valid scientific definition in use by biologists and evolutionists, and then discuss what you expect the evidence to be, whether it is valid to expect that to happen according to evolutionary processes.
So what's your definition of macroevolution? Note that I have asked you this simple question 8 times already.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : first message link
Edited by RAZD, : pink highlight
Edited by RAZD, : clrty

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 23 by idscience, posted 03-01-2012 9:13 PM idscience has not replied

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


(1)
Message 30 of 164 (654511)
03-01-2012 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by idscience
03-01-2012 9:25 PM


Re: Please define macroevolution first.
Hi again idscience,
Modern Evolutionary Synthesis states that an undirected process of random mutation along with natural selection is sufficient to produce completely new body plans. ID does not hold that this mechanism is sufficient. Natural selection as stated above is responsible for limited changes and that is non controversial. The increase of information needed to accomplish novel structures like limbs, new organs, and wings can not be accomplished by a step by step random mutation and selection process.
Please cite your source on the modern evolutionary synthesis and what it states.
Now we note that you still have not defined macroevolution, and you have now introduced another concept that we will need a definition of before we can proceed.
First define macroevolution
Then define information
Both of these definitions need to be referenced to scientific work and they need to be testable definitions (ie - by your definition of information we should be able to test whether or not information can increase via evolutionary processes).
SO let's start with your definition of macroevolution before this cart gets too far down the road.
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by idscience, posted 03-01-2012 9:25 PM idscience 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