Summations Only

Hello idscience, and welcome to the fray. What is macroevolution?A definition used by science (biology, evolution) please, along with a reference so we can check your sources. Assertion without substantiation. What are your references? Again, what is macroevolution?We need you to define this so that we know if we are talking about the same thing. What you don't accept is irrelevant, opinion is apparently completely unable to alter reality in any significant way.What the evidence shows is what is relevant. 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.Enjoy.

Hello again idscience So is it a testable difference?We can test for homology and morphology occurring in lab experiments, field experiments, the DNA record and the fossil record.Can we test for common design? What would we expect from common design that we would not see from common descent?Enjoy

Hi again idscience. 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. 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 ....Do you know what the gish gallop is? It's a dishonest creationist trick to keep from answering question.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : gishing

Hi again idscience, Indeed.Can you tell me what we would see from such sharing of design that we would not see from common descent?Enjoy.

Hi idscience, thanks, 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?EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : subtitle

Hi idscience, why do you keep avoiding the question? And my first response to you (before this thread was promoted) was on the The Death Knell for ID? thread: My second response to you, the first on this thread was: 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. So what's your definition of macroevolution? 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. 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): 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: If you can't define macroevolution, then I will assume that you have no idea what you are talking about. 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 linkEdited by RAZD, : pink highlightEdited by RAZD, : clrty

Hi again idscience, 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 macroevolutionThen define informationBoth 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.

Hi again idscience, Amusingly, this is you once again avoiding the issue of your assertions being of questionable value (hence the questioning).Let's look at the full response I made: Still no definition for macroevolution, so I am still going on the assumption of ignorance there.Curiously, I can't give you an example of macroevolution until I know what you think it is -- is that a difficult concept for you to grasp?Next, the premise of my question was that you provided something that would test for common design rather than common descent. This isn't claiming that common descent is a fact (which we can get to once you define macroevolution), but about having evidence that would differentiate common design from common descent.The premise was that you should have an example of that something that would show common design rather than common descent.The question was for you to provide an example of that something that would show common design rather than common descent. Sorry, moving the goalposts doesn't work. An unbiased question is for you to provide an example of that something that would show common design rather than common descent. And perhaps if you provided a definition for macroevolution we could proceed to discuss why this is not an issue for evolution and descent from common ancestors. Interestingly, what you have is still mutation, just introduced by the virus in a random manner into the genome. That it is still preserved in the genome means that it survived and reproduced along with the genome of the person carrying it. This is the way a lot of neutral and mildly deleterious mutations get carried through generations in breeding populations, by being carried by individuals that are successful at survival and breeding.Are you claiming that this is a mechanism for making your something that would show common design rather than common descent?If so then please describe what traits specifically have been transfered that are common design: eyes? ears? beating heart? How have any traits been improved by the insertion of common design? better eyes? better ears? better heart? Then show how specific parts of the genome were targeted for these viral inserts to accomplish this task.Perhaps if you looked at what you provided evidence for (if you can call it that) and actually compared it with your concept for something that would show common design rather than common descent, you would see that you had failed to provide such evidence yourself. Blah blah blah. Which still doesn't interfere with the concept of descent from common ancestors. Sadly, for you, you haven't falsified common descent, just thrown around some if and maybe speculation. Sorry. You certainly have not provide an example of your something that would show common design rather than common descent.btw -- here is a list of articles by Graham Lawton, the author of your article. This is not a peer reviewed biological article in a biology journal but a hack job done by a reporter. Amusingly I am ready and willing to provide the evidence, once you define what macroevolution is.Note we are only into page one on my computer (you can set the number of posts to show, so pages is rather irrelevant, much like your caterwauling along without defining macroevolution).The fact that this thread is at 53 messages at this point, of which 17 are posts from you avoiding the definition of macroevolution, tells me that this is something troublesome for you, perhaps you can't define it because you don't know what you are talking about.Can you or can you not define macroevolution? Or do we get more run-on pratts and unsubstantiated assertions. If you are so interested, how come you appear to be completely incapable of defining what macroevolution is?There is plenty of evidence for macroevolution ... the question is whether or not you understand what macroevolution is.Are you able to demonstrate your understanding of macroevolution by providing a valid definition for it?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : clrtyEdited by RAZD, : 53Edited by RAZD, : engls

Hi again idscience Sorry, you still have not provided a definition of macroevolution.Instead you are displaying trolling behavior here, rather than debating the issues you have raised. This is typical behavior of posters who are unable to answer questions.What is your definition of macroevolution.If nothing else, by now you should have been able to google this or look in wikipedia, read what is there, and post it in your own words (to show comprehension rather than copy paste ability).Enjoy.

Hi idscience,Still no definition of macroevolution. Curiously (a) I do think of you as someone who doesn't know what macroevolution is, but I also think that (b) you think you do or you would not have posted what you did in Message 1: If you new the definition for macroevolution that scientists use you would not say that it was an hypothesis.So what do you think the definition for macroevolution is?Enjoy.

Hi again idscience, still unable to answer a simple question? It's ridiculous for you to pretend to know about and intelligently discuss something you can't define.I can define it and present citations to show that my definition is used by actual scientists, even in today's world.Again you show your ignorance. And once again we have a problem - what's information? Define it in a way that we can test to see if it increases. Note that scientists do not use this term in evolutionary biology. Close -- of course we have plenty of evidence of speciation. No, that is not macroevolution. You obviously are clueless about what macroevolution truly is. AND neither is THAT a definition of macroevolution. All it amounts to is your desperate opinion. Opinions have been shown to be unable to alter reality. Nope that's not it either.Do you need a little help?Or can you define macroevolution all by yourself?Let's see if you can.Enjoy.

Hi again idscience, No it doesn't.Nor is that a definition of macroevolution (see Panda in Message 69) How are these novel morphology?Both the bird wing and the bat wing have the same bones in the same order as limbs. What's new about that?The bones in the leg are the same kinds of bones found in the fins of transitional fossils (like Tiktaalik and friends). What's novel about that?Even the fin evolved from the leg evolved from the fin uses the same bones in the same order as the limbs, which are in the same order as the original fins. What's novel about that.Now, if you would be so kind as to define macroevolution, then we can look and see if it can explain these changes. No it doesn't.(a) Macroevolution does not need to use the term "information" at all, and
(b) you now need to define "information" in a way that we can measure and determine whether or not it increases. Scientists avoid this by using terms that are defined and testable. So what is your definition for macroevolution? You provide that and then we can discuss the necessary time parameters that would be involved. So define macroevolution and then we can look and see if it can explain this. Again, once you define macroevolution we can look and see if it can explain this.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : added + clrtyEdited by RAZD, : mre clrty

Good morning Percy, And idscience could easily have looked this up on wikipedia:
Macroevolution - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Macroevolution is evolution on a scale of separated gene pools.[1] Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution,[2] which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population.[3]

​

The process of speciation may fall within the purview of either, depending on the forces thought to drive it. Paleontology, evolutionary developmental biology, comparative genomics and genomic phylostratigraphy contribute most of the evidence for the patterns and processes that can be classified as macroevolution. An example of macroevolution is the appearance of feathers during the evolution of birds from theropod dinosaurs.

​

The evolutionary course of Equidae (wide family including all horses and related animals) is often viewed as a typical example of macroevolution. The earliest known genus, Hyracotherium (now reclassified as a palaeothere), was a herbivore animal resembling a dog that lived in the early Cenozoic. As its habitat transformed into an open arid grassland, selective pressure required that the animal become a fast grazer. Thus elongation of legs and head as well as reduction of toes gradually occurred, producing the only extant genus of Equidae, Equus.[4]

---

Bold added.Other definitions are provided by:

quote:

---

Berkeley:

​

The Definition:

​

Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.

---

Microevolution - small scale evolution - is the changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next.Macroevolution - large scale evolution - is the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations.

quote:

---

UMich:

​

Definitions of Biological Evolution

​

We begin with two working definitions of biological evolution, which capture these two facets of genetics and differences among life forms. Then we will ask what is a species, and how does a species arise?

​

Definition 1:

​

Changes in the genetic composition of a population with the passage of each generation

​

Definition 2:

​

The gradual change of living things from one form into another over the course of time, the origin of species and lineages by descent of living forms from ancestral forms, and the generation of diversity

​

Note that the first definition emphasizes genetic change. It commonly is referred to as microevolution. The second definition emphasizes the appearance of new, physically distinct life forms that can be grouped with similar appearing life forms in a taxonomic hierarchy. It commonly is referred to as macroevolution.

---

So again:Microevolution - Changes in the genetic composition of a population with the passage of each generation.Macroevolution - The gradual change of living things from one form into another over the course of time, the origin of species and lineages by descent of living forms from ancestral forms, and the generation of diversity.These help define what "above the level of species" means: the generation of new species and the formation of nested hierarchies of descent from common ancestor populations and the generation of diversity.In this regard this: Shows the evidence for macroevolution occurring several times in the fossil record for Pelycodus.Do we see evolution above the species level? Yes, several times. We see Pelycodus ralstoni evolving into Pelycodus mckennai as one instance at the bottom and the evolution of Pelycodus jarrovii into Notharctus as another instance at the top.Do we see speciation? Yes, several times. We see the speciation event that divides the Pelycodus trigonodus parent species into the Copelemur feretutus and Pelycodus ebditus daughter species and the speciation event that divides the Pelycodus ebditus parent species into the Pelycodus jarrovii and Pelycodus frugivorus daughter species.Do we see the formation of a nested hierarchy? Yes, from the original Pelycodus ralstoni at the bottom we have several branches of a nested hierarchy that looks like this:

                         |
                         ^ a
                        / \
                       /   \
                      /     \
                     /       ^ b
                    /       / \
                   /       /   \
                  e       d     c 

Do we see an increase in the diversity of life? Yes, where originally we had one breeding population Pelycodus we now have three: Pelycodus Copelemur and Notharctus.Do we see the formation of higher taxon levels than species? Yes, where originally we had one species Pelycodus we now have three genera: Pelycodus Copelemur and Notharctus that together form a family.And this is but the tip of the iceberg of evidence for macroevolution.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : clrtyEdited by RAZD, : more detail added at endEdited by RAZD, : clrty

Hi Theodoric, It no longer matters what definition idscience is or was using, he has forfeited his position to provide a definition in spite of numerous requests, and now must live with the definitions provided by us.If he doesn't like those definitions or disagrees with them, tough: he had his chance and did not take it.We now see numerous posts with evidence of macroevolution provided by a number of posters. These examples fit the definitions provided.His only recourse are to accept, falsify or deny the evidence.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : coding

Hi Percy, Within the bounds of science surely. If he claims that macroevolution is cows turning into whales that then give birth to zebras, then it becomes obvious that he is not talking about evolution in any form, but fantasy based on misinformation.If he wants to post a definition from a scientific source and cite the reference then we can discuss what the differences are and how valid they are.The biggest problem I see idscience having is in thinking that macroevolution is an hypothesis, when actually it is a term defined to apply to certain processes of evolution, to separate those processes of evolution from the processes of microevolution in discussions on evolution and the theory of evolution.Likewise microevolution is not a theory, it is a process.When we study microevolution we study the process of change in the frequency distribution and composition of hereditary traits within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities.When we study macroevolution we study the process of the development of new species, via arbitrary speciation or discrete speciation, the formation of nested hierarchies of descent of new species from common ancestor populations, and the increase in diversity of life.Conflating either with the theory of evolution leads one to misunderstandings of what explains which. The definition of macroevolution explains what it is, just as the definition of microevolution explains what it is.Enjoy