Summations Only

Hi again idscience, Yes, because you were incapable of providing the definition the administrator for the forum had to step in and do your work for you.I take it from this response that you do accept this definition without reservations or quibbles. au contraire. Now that we have a definition of macroevolution to use and to compare evidence against there have been several posts that provide you with examples that show that macroevolution occurs, that it is a fact that it occurs.See Message 81, Message 84, and Message 85, just for starters. With just these posts your questions are answered for this thread topic, even though there is a lot more evidence avaiable.Macroevolution in biology and evolution is not an hypothesis or a theory, it is a process that is defined for the purpose of discussing different levels of evolution that we see in the fossil record, in the historical record, in the genetic record and in the world around us.The theory involved with evolution is the theory of evolution.Now if your questions still aren't answered, it's could be because you did not frame them correctly, mixing up macroevolution with the theory of evolution and having false expectations, based on a (demonstrated) incomplete knowledge of biology in general and evolution in particular. This is not macroevolution, nor is explaining this to you in any way connected to providing you with evidence for macroevolution. If you want to discuss these you need to start another thread.There is a lot more evidence for macroevolution that we can discuss, however you need to focus on your issue of evidence for macroevolution, review the evidence already provided and confirm or deny that they meet the criteria for macroevolution as defined.If you feel they meet the criteria for macroevolution as defined, then your questions for this thread are answered and it can be closed.If you feel that they do not meet the criteria for macroevolution as defined, then you need to show why they don't and substantiate your assertions with evidence.If you don't understand how they meet the criteria for macroevolution as defined, then feel free to ask questionsEnjoy.

Hi again idscience, Curiously, what you consider it is irrelevant. This thread is about evidence for macroevolution according to the scientific definitions provided Now that you have a definition to use, and people have provided you with evidence of evolution that meets the criteria as defined, do you agree that your thread question is answered?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : coding

Hi again idscience, No, I am "hung up" on discussing science with the correct scientific terms and a proper understanding of them so that communication is achieved. Amusingly such explanation has nothing to do with whether or not there is evidence for macroevolution, nor is it a part of macroevolution as defined.You appear to be confusing the theory of evolution with the process of macroevolution.If you want to discuss how the theory of evolution explains this, then start another thread and finish this one by acknowledging that evidence of macroevolution has been provided that meets the definition provided. First, no theory in science is proven. Theories can be invalidated by contrary evidence or validated by confirming evidence, but validation means that the theory can only be considered tentatively true at best.Second common descent is just the process of offspring from parent, and it can be demonstrated by evidence to have in fact occurred. The theory of common descent would be that this process can be applied to larger groups to form a tree of life. So far the evidence for this is that it can indeed be applied to virtually all known life -- ie that it can be considered a valid theory.Third, what you can quote on your site is this: Conditions for quoting are (1) that it be quoted in full, (2) that it be properly cited as a reference and (3) that you give me irrevocable permission to edit your site and correct any errors you make (it could use some help anyway).or you can just link to this thread and this message so that people perusing your thread can be exposed to what the science actually says. Again, this doesn't apply to the definition for the process of macroevolution or to the provision of evidence that macroevolution occurs, which are the topic of your thread.What you are asking is how the theory of evolution explains the diversity of life, and this is a different question from your initial post.I could suggest you take a course in evolutionary biology at your local community college or higher, or I could suggest that you read through all the pages on http://evolution.berkeley.edu/...shtmlBerkeley Evolution 101Then start a new thread on what you don't understand.Enjoy.Edited by Admin, : Reduce image width.Edited by RAZD, : small adds

Hi idscience, Then perhaps you are not looking for evidence of macroevolution by the definitions provided but something else. If response to your question does not give you the answer you expect then it is time to review your question/s to see if what you asked was what you needed to ask.Perhaps if you can define better what you expect to see, and why, then we can see if what you expect is based on false understanding (something that does not actually occur under evolution, such as the hopeful monster pratt), or whether it is an aspect of evolution that is explained via the theory of evolution (which you apparently confuse with macroevolution).If you are asking how organism develop specific aspects seen in the fossil record then you are talking about the theory of evolution rather than macroevolution. Yes, but not under macroevolution. This would be under how the theory of evolution explains what we see in the world around us, in the historical record, in the fossil record, and in the genetic record. Sadly, for you, this opinion has already been shown to be false. It is a process and a the occurrence of macroevolution is an observed and documented fact. Macroevolution is a process that is defined in order to facilitate discussion about evolution, not an hypothesis. Look at the wiki article:

quote:

---

Macroevolution - Wikipedia

​

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.

---

bold added -- it's a process not an hypothesis. The definition allows different aspects of evolution to be classified as macroevolution or not.Again, it looks like what you need to ask about is the theory of evolution: So when you are looking for an explanation of how x could have evolved you are asking about the theory of evolution. Whether x is classified as microevolution or macroevolution is irrelevant.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : clrtyEdited by RAZD, : small adds

Hi idscience, Also see Message 81, repeated in Message 107, and then see Message 112 for several additional definitions. Sadly, for you, this is not common design but analogous traits:Homologies and analogies - Understanding Evolution

quote:

---

Not all characters are homologies. For example, birds and bats both have wings, while mice and crocodiles do not. Does that mean that birds and bats are more closely related to one another than to mice and crocodiles? No. When we examine bird wings and bat wings closely, we see that there are some major differences.

​

​

Bat wings consist of flaps of skin stretched between the bones of the fingers and arm. Bird wings consist of feathers extending all along the arm. These structural dissimilarities suggest that bird wings and bat wings were not inherited from a common ancestor with wings. This idea is illustrated by the phylogeny below, which is based on a large number of other characters.

---

Note that there is nothing similar in the use of the finger bones, their length or position. In the bird wing several of the finger bones are bunched together, shortened or fused to make the end of the wing stronger, while all the fingers are spread out and extended in length in the bat wing.That is not the same design, it is not common design. And yet they still have similar bones in the same order from pelvis to toe, the differences are derived traits that have evolved since the time of their shared common ancestor that gave them the pattern of bones. Curiously, macroevolution, microevolution or evolution in general do not have to produce anything. Macroevolution is a process that involves speciation, the formation of new species, the development of nested hierarchies and an increase in diversity.Evolution is a response mechanism. What's a novel structure? Is a webbed foot a novel structure? We see instances of mutations all the time where toes are webbed in offspring while their parents do not have webbed toes. Is that what a novel structure is? That's because I need to understand what you mean. For example, you could not define macroevolution and you still can't explain what you think it means except that the definition used in science does not give you the answers you want.I'll take that as a no, you do not have a usable definition for "information" that would allow one to measure it and see whether or not it increased.This is of no concern to me nor to biology in general or evolution in particular, as this term is not used in this science. We get along fine without it.Enjoy.

Hi Big_Al35 A review of Michael Denton's book?

quote:

---

Conclusion (updated: 29 July 2005)
Michael Denton often is called a creationist. The title of the first Chapter of his book is: "Genesis Rejected", but the chapter contains a historical account, not a defence of Genesis. It is true that Denton accepts Paley's argument from design. This is a philosophical argument for the existence of a supernatural designer. But it is also a 'natural theology' in the tradition of Paley. Since Denton rejects (macro)evolution and his own Typological Model does not explain the origin of species, he needs an answer. Paley has given him the answer. This is a nonscientific answer because both philosphy and natural theology are outside the natural sciences. With hindsight, Michael Denton could be called the first 'Intelligent Design Theorist' (5). Denton must be aware that Paley's answer is outside sience, because:
"Undoubtedly, one of the major factors which contribute to the immense appeal of the Darwinian framework is that, with all its deficiencies, the Darwinian model is still the only model of evolution ever proposed which invokes well-understood physical and natural processes as the causal agencies of evolutionary change."

---

So he says that Denton is a neo-Paleyist that rejects macroevolution and that evolution is based on natural processes. Big Whap. So why do you disagree with it? And?Curiously, that is what science in general does, including physics, chemistry, astronomy and geology for starters. If you have trouble with science taking an agnostic position, then you should talk to one of the people on the clergy project list. Not really: Mendel had no clue about natural selection or mutations. What he did was isolate dominant and recessive hereditary traits, not the genes responsible for them. He had instances where this experiments did not work out quite right and he ignored these anomalies ... caused by mutations. His work was important because nobody had done this isolation of dominant\recessive heredity before and his ignorance of genes and mutations was universal at the time. He started science on the path to finding genes.Darwin noted that natural selection operating on the observed variation in species was sufficient to explain the origin of species.Interestingly, the modern theory of evolution incorporates Darwin's natural selection with Mendel's hereditary traits and several other processes.As I've said previously on this thread (getting back to the topic): Going further: Note that Phyletic Speciation is included under (extended) Microevolution, and that this combined with Divergent Speciation means that the process of Macroevolution is included in the theory.Alternatively, we can drop the distinctions on evolution and speciation and simply say: This theory is tested by experiments and field observations carried out as part of the science of evolution.Macroevolution is a process that is defined as a distinction from microevolution, to apply to different aspects of what is seen in the objective evidence we have, specifically when we look outside what occurs within a breeding population at what causes diversity.Like any theory, the job of the ToE is to explain the evidence in manner which invokes well-understood physical and natural processes as the causal agencies. It does this.Thus if you look at the fossil record and see X and you want to understand how X came to be, your don't ask microevolution or macroevolution to explain it, you ask the ToE to explain it, using the known processes involved in microevolution and macroevolution.How does an eye form? How does a fin form? ask ToE.Enjoy,Edited by Admin, : Reduce image width.

Hi Jar, Well that is the heart of the question isn't it? There are so many definitions both from science and from non-science (particularly creationists) that it is easy to be confused or for two people to be talking about two different things. It is an artificial artifact of our making merely to make a label to use in conversation. Yes, it is evolution accumulated from adding up the single generation observations of microevolution. 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1=10 rather than 1+1=2.Enjoy.

Hi again Big_Al35 In this case the rule was strict inheritance, and the exception were those cases where the pea plants were modified by mutation and thus did not fit in the neat boxes of Mendel's model.So in this case those exceptions, being mutations, are part of what drives microevolutionary change. Of course, those would be the hereditary traits that are passed from generation to generation and form the homologies observed in patterns of descent.But preservation of homologies are not part of the mechanisms of change, and Mendel's work was focused on the preserved homologies in his experiments.But neither mutations nor preserved homologies are elements of the larger picture that is the macroevolution process, rather they are part of microevolution.The topic is evidence for macroevolution.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : add

Hi again Big_Al35 If this is what you hear then you are often being told falsehoods. If you want to discuss this further or just read what is actually shown by the peppered moths ...See the Peppered Moths and Natural Selection thread for the details.As it is off-topic here. Perhaps this could be a good start for a new topic: Evidence for the mechanisms of MicroevolutionEnjoy

Hi idscience, Are you willing to learn? Macroevolution is not proved, it is a process that is observed and named. Because it is observed before it is named, the evidence that was observed demonstrates that the definition fits the observation. This is not a difficult concept.Science defines terms for use in discussions of the science, and this means that they would necessarily define terms to mean things that are actually observed.Perhaps you could try to go back and find who first used the term macroevolution and what it was originally used for.

quote:

---

Macroevolution - Origin of the term:
Russian entomologist Yuri Filipchenko first coined the terms "macroevolution" and "microevolution" in 1927 in his German language work, "Variabilitt und Variation". Since the inception of the two terms, their meanings have been revised several times and the term macroevolution fell into limited disfavour when it was taken over by such writers as the geneticist Richard Goldschmidt (1940) and the paleontologist Otto Schindewolf to describe their orthogenetic theories.[5] ...

---

Have fun finding the original definition ... however it should be noted that what is critical is how it is used in science today. How creationists use or misunderstand the term is irrelevant to what the scientists discuss with the term used by their definition. If you want to discuss science, then learn the meanings and use the terms of science. We gave you what you asked, if that is not the answers you wanted then you asked the wrong question.Do you want to see how large morphological changes occur and the evidence for them then you are asking for evidence of how the ToE explains changes observed in the fossil record and ends up with the diversity of morphological differences we see in the world today.Of course, first you are going to need to define what you mean by "large morphological changes" as this is not a quantified description.Do you think that the morphological differences between a house cat and a red fox are "large morphological changes"? Do you think they are differentiated by just a little or by lots of macroevolution?Do you think a webbed foot is a "large morphological change" when the parents don't have webbed feet?You might want to read through Dogs will be Dogs will be ??? or MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it? and see if you can formulate your question clearly. Well can you deny that many generations add more evolution than single generations? Here's Pelycodus again: How many generations do you think are shown there?Speciation can be taken as the boundary between microevolution and macroevolution, and this would be consistent with microevolution occurring within breeding populations. Generally, however, scientists don't worry so much about macro and micro, and prefer to talk about evolution and the resulting cladistic patterns.What happens with speciation events is a division of the breeding population into two or more populations, each then free to evolve independently by microevolution within their respective breeding populations. Are zebras and horses different species? Can they be bred in captivity? Do they willingly breed in captivity? Do they willingly breed in the wild?Able to be artificially bred in captivity does not mean willing to breed. Perhaps that's because we've seen the evidence for 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1=10 and know that your assertions are absolutely false.Of course you could try to prove me wrong by actually providing evidence of this mythic mutational barrier. See "Macro" vs "Micro" genetic "kind" mechanism? -- an 8 year old thread that asks for this mechanism, but which no creationist nor idologist has provided. Be the first. And those assumptions can be tested by applying the methodology of cladistics, and by having separate groups make simultaneous analysis and by comparing it with similar analysis using DNA.Curiously this has been done, extensively. Guess what? They confirm each other. Can you tell me why the results are the same if the process is subjective? But amazingly has not even been dented in over 150 years of attempts, both from creationists and scientists (scientists continually test their science, and one could make a big splash name for themselves should they show the theory is false). No, we thank YOU for the exercise in futility, trying to answer questions for someone who (a) doesn't understand what he is asking, (b) is unwilling to learn when his misunderstandings are explained, and (c) had his mind made up before hand. Thanks, I'll add it to the thread Scientific vs Creationist Frauds and Hoaxes and note that this is another site spreading false and ignorant information to delude gullible people. And yet, interestingly, science and scientists are not perturbed. Perhaps because there is not the major issue you seem to think there is. Again, you have provided absolutely no evidence for any barrier. Your assertion is based on your opinion. You want to see common design, so you even claim you see it for the bat and bird wing, in spite of evidence that the homologies between bats and quadrapeds and the homologies between birds and quadrapeds are greater than the homologies between bats and birds.The evidence of nested clade hierarchies is evidence against common design.The evidence of homology distribution between species with convergent evolution (like the bird and bat wing) are evidence against common design. Multiple speciation events, formation of the nested clade hierarchy have been done, and they are changes beyond "speciation" (as defined and used in science), so again you either have failed to comprehend the evidence or are ignoring it. And?Your apparent failure to understand that science uses terms the way they define them to be use to clearly discuss the science, rather than the way some underinformed layman uses them, is not a problem for us. It isn't proven, it is defined to start with speciation and the development of nested clade hierarchies. The picture above for pelycodus meets this definition, therefore it is an example of the process defined by the term macroevolution. They can be isolated by behavior, geology, timing, and a number of other barriers to breeding in the wild. You have an opposing position that you have not supported, that is the "enemy" -- not you. Feel free to come back, particularly if you have any new questions.Enjoy.

To idscience and other participants,The early part of this thread was taken up by many repeated attempts to get idscience to define macroevolution in his words, to get a better idea of what he was talking about.The term macroevolution has many misunderstandings and misinterpretations, especially among those not well versed or knowledgeable in the field of evolution.The reluctance of idscience to define this term reveals such a lack of knowledge. Other comments reveal a poor understanding of the use of terminology, theory and proof in science. This is unfortunate, and I think it is a sad commentary on our education system for idscience to be in this position.Microevolution is defined as a process that was already observed.Similarly, Macroevolution is defined as a process that was already observed. This means that it is neither an hypothesis or a theory, but a fact by definition. If I define 'pencil' as a tube with a center stick of a compound that leaves an observable, erasable track on paper, then observing such an object does not prove that the hypothesis of 'pencil' is true nor is it proof that 'hypothetical pencils' exist.The confusion of macroevolution with the theory of evolution and the misunderstanding of what scientific terms, hypothesis and theories are used for and do is exemplified by the following from idscience: It is not the function of the pencil to demonstrate how words are written, nor does a pencil have to draw a picture. It is a tool. The term macroevolution is a tool for understanding the variety of life.The job of theories and hypothesis is to explain observed objective evidence. It is the job of the ToE to explain how a wing can be developed from a limb, how a limb can develop from a fin, how increased diversity occurs, including more complex forms from less complex forms and less complex forms from more complex forms.The ToE is capable of doing this.Whether these developments are considered "novel" is irrelevant to the process, as non-novel developments also need to be explained.When creationists and idiologist ask for explanations of novel morphology they are asking about something other than the occurrence of macroevolution, as macroevolution occurs many many times without novel morphology (a wing from a limb uses the same bones and other structures, just adapted by microevolution into a different pattern), and even after lots of macroevolutionary steps, the differences between, say a cat and a fox, are not that remarkable.Its like they ask for an example of how a pencil is made, and when you show them the process of gluing wood around a stick of graphite, they say that it doesn't explain mechanical pencils.They are asking these questions because they think, or they have been told, that evolution cannot explain them.More telling is that the formation of new structures is not by the process of macroevolution but by the process of microevolution.Due to the continued failure of idscience to provide a definition of macroevolution the admin stepped in (Message 79) and defined macroevolution for this thread, to be used by all participants:

quote:

---

About the definition of macroevolution, for the purposes of this thread macroevolution is defined as evolution above the species level. A gray squirrel evolving into a red squirrel is macroevolution. A fish evolving into an amphibian is macroevolution. A bacteria evolving into man is macroevolution. Included in this definition is the fact that such transformations require thousands to millions to billions to even trillions of generations, depending upon the degree of change.

---

Color added for emphasis.Once this definition was provided several examples of macroevolution were provided. Indeed, we could add foraminifera where many many many examples of the hierarchis of nested clades and macroevolution are preserved in a virtually complete fossil record. This even includes the formation of morphology that did not exist before (and hence is "novel" by normal definitions of the term).Also see Message 84 and Message 85. There are many instances of macroevolution both in the fossil record and in the genetic record.Unfortunately, idscience seemed reluctant to accept that his use of macroevolution was wrong, as we see in his first post following the admin's definition: ... ie - how does it explain a mechanical pencil ...Amusingly, these questions are (a) old creationist pratts, and (b) about how the theory of evolution explains these formations, which it does with microevolution and the adaptation of existing structures, not by de novo creation of new structures.Thus idscience still does not understand what he is asking about, even after it is explained to him, several times, by several people.It is at this point, where repeated attempts to explain things to people that I consider the effects of cognitive dissonance on firmly held beliefs: A curious side effect of cognitive dissonance is that (initially anyway) the belief is held even more firmly while the denial of disconfirming evidence and attempts to discredit messengers and similar behavior increases. The conclusion is not 'whoa, that may be right, let me investigate' but 'whoa, that must be wrong, I must disprove it' leading to seeking out evidence with confirmation bias, rather than an open-minded skepticism.To Pressie Message 152The full source of this quote is available at
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&...

quote:

---

Ignorance Is No Crime
by Richard Dawkins

​

"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)." I first wrote that in a book review in the New York Times in 1989, and it has been much quoted against me ever since, as evidence of my arrogance and intolerance. Of course it sounds arrogant, but undisguised clarity is easily mistaken for arrogance. Examine the statement carefully and it turns out to be moderate, almost self-evidently true.

​

By far the largest of the four categories is "ignorant," and ignorance is no crime (nor is it blissI forget who it was said, "If ignorance is bliss, how come there's so much misery about?"). Anybody who thinks Joe DiMaggio was a cricketer has to be ignorant, stupid, or insane (probably ignorant), and you wouldn't think me arrogant for saying so. It is not intolerant to remark that flat-earthers are ignorant, stupid, or (probably) insane. It's just true. ...

---

I recommend reading the whole article several times, particularly if you are someone who does not accept evolution.Ignorance is curable by learning the truth. Of course the ignorant person has to be willing to learn. He concludes the article with:

quote:

---

I don't withdraw a word of my initial statement. But I do now think it may have been incomplete. There is perhaps a fifth category, which may belong under "insane" but which can be more sympathetically characterized by a word like tormented, bullied, or brainwashed. Sincere people who are not ignorant, not stupid, and not wicked can be cruelly torn, almost in two, between the massive evidence of science on the one hand, and their understanding of what their holy book tells them on the other. I think this is one of the truly bad things religion can do to a human mind. There is wickedness here, but it is the wickedness of the institution and what it does to a believing victim, not wickedness on the part of the victim himself. The clearest example I know is poignant, even sad, and I shall do it justice in a later article.

---

Of course, tormented would be one of the effects of cognitive dissonance. I call this final category deluded and agree that it is sad to see occurring with the frequency I see here. It seems that our school system has failed a lot of people. Like ignorance, delusion_(1b) and delusion₍₂₎ are curable by learning the truth, as long as the ignorant person is willing to learn.However, brainwashed is a bit stronger than delusion_(1b), and would be harder to cure, as this can interfere with the willingness to learn, and pushing the person towards delusion₍₃₎, which is the wickedness of the brainwasher. Try ignorant, stupid, insane, wicked, ... or deluded.Passing on misinformation that you have been deluded into believing is not necessarily mendacious or wicked. It is sad. And it is sadder still when the victim is unwilling to learn. Harsh. I am disappointed, disappointed by the unwillingness to learn and the retreat to repeated assertions (as if that makes them more real).I am saddened and disappointed each time I see such recalcitrance on these threads. If our schools cannot teach science, they should at least teach open-minded skepticism and encourage a willingness to learn more.Finally, idscience asked if he could quote me on his website and my response was:

quote:

---

Third, what you can quote on your site is this:

​

(1) The process of Microevolution involves 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.

​

Mutations of hereditary traits have been observed to occur, and thus this aspect of microevolution is an observed, known objective fact, rather than an untested hypothesis.

​

Natural selection and neutral drift have been observed to occur, along with the observed alteration in the distribution of hereditary traits within breeding populations, and thus this aspect of microevolution is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis.

​

(2) The process of Macroevolution involves the development of new species, the formation of nested hierarchies of descent of new species from common ancestor populations, and an increase in the diversity of life.

​

This looks at the continued effects of microevolution over many generations, where the accumulation of changes from generation to generation become sufficient for new species to develop that are different from the ancestral parent populations. This lineal change in species is sometimes called phyletic or arbitrary speciation.

​

(a) The process of Phyletic Speciation involves a lineage of descent from an ancestor population accumulating sufficient differences through microevolution that, when compared to the ancestor population, it would appear to be a different species.

​

This is sometimes called arbitrary speciation because it is difficult to agree on where the line of division from one species to the next occurs, how many times this occurs in a given lineage, and because the definition of species itself is fairly arbitrary.

​

The amount of change in phyletic speciation can be compared to the changes seen in divergent speciation between parent (ancestral) populations and the daughter (descendant) populations as a check on the amount of change to be considered.

​

(b) The process of Divergent Speciation involves the division of a parent population into two or more reproductively isolated daughter populations, which then are free to (micro) evolve independently of each other.

​

The reduction or loss of interbreeding (gene flow, sharing of mutations) between the daughter populations results in different, independent, evolutionary responses in the daughter populations to their respective and different ecological challenges and opportunities (including the existence and impact of the other daughter population/s on survival).

​

Independent evolution within each subpopulation results in divergence of the subpopulations from each other. Divergent speciation forms a branching pattern of descent from a common ancestor pool, and results in added diversity of species. Further instances of divergent speciation adds further to the branching pattern and results in a nested hierarchy pattern.

​

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

​

Phyletic speciation with the development of new species by extended microevolution in a lineage of descent has been observed to occur, and thus this aspect of macroevolution is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis.

​

Divergent speciation with the development of new species by the reproductive isolation of daughter populations has been observed to occur, and thus this aspect of macroevolution is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis.

​

The formation of nested hierarchies of descent from common ancestor populations has been observed to occur, and thus this aspect of macroevolution is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis.

​

The addition to diversity by increasing the number of species and higher groupings has been observed to occur, and thus this aspect of macroevolution is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis.

​

One single example that shows all of these processes in the fossil record is:

​

​

Conditions for quoting are (1) that it be quoted in full, (2) that it be properly cited as a reference and (3) that you give me irrevocable permission to edit your site and correct any errors you make (it could use some help anyway).

---

In Message 150 idscience says: This is okay so long as comments are not taken out of context (as his first request to me was), which of course is the old creationist\idologist ploy of "quote mining".Instead, I would prefer that idscience stick around and participate in other threads (several have already been recommended), and learn so that he can provide correct information in his own words.This may be asking a lot ... as willingness to learn has not yet been displayed.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : clrtyEdited by RAZD, : mreEdited by RAZD, : clrtyEdited by RAZD, : subT