Macro and Micro Evolution

Hi Sonic,Man this threads moving fast! It's not just the matching of stratigraphy & phylogeny that presents such good evidence of evolution, it's that phylogenies using different character sets match so well to other phylogenies. As I pointed out in an earlier post, in a large phylogeny the number of possible trees explodes. This is one of the reasons why phylogenetic analyses hasn't achieved it's true potential yet. Computers still aren't fast enough to do the numbers grind for really large numbers of taxa. There are over 43,000,000 possible trees for a 10 taxa phylogeny. Meaning getting two by chance the same is 43 million : 1. Three phylogenies? Well, it has at least 8 zeroes in it! (1,849,000,000,000,000:1) Now, they always disagree in details, but the core signals are nearly always the same, so even if the agreement drops to 50% evolution isn't in any trouble. It is still incredibly unlikely that two phylogenies would even remotely resemble each other. For example, it doesn't seem to matter what data you take, mammals seem to be related to reptiles, as are birds, reptiles are related to basal tetrapods/amphibians, which in turn are related to fish. That's the core signal that always shines through. But even in the lower taxa (branching off of the above), the other clades consistently return the same or similar relationships. There are discrepancies, in some cases quite major ones. But the chance of getting such corroborating results is vanishingly small. The overall agreement is good, & if evolution were false, it has no right to be.It works a bit like this, say I produce an evidence of something, say two people witnessing a crime & saying the getaway car has the same number plate bar one letter. Say the reports claimed the plate was 123456, & the other 123457 The odds of them getting so close is 10^5 (10 possible numbers per character to the power of correct characters). That's 100,000 : 1 Chance that they got that close a corroboration by chance alone, it would have been 1,000,000 : 1 had they got it all right. But we are left having to explain why they were even close at all? Are we to reject the testimony because it wasn't 100% perfect matching? No, clearly the defence, if he is to trash the witnesses testimony on statistical grounds is now required to produce 100,000 witnesses that all say it was something else (even to each other), or at least another two that get 5 out of 6 right. In the absence of such counter evidence, & given it's 100,000 : 1, we can be pretty confident that the first 5 characters in the sequence are 12345. The same goes for the overall phylogenetic signal provided by cladistics alone, let alone corroborating it with stratigraphy.Mark------------------
"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall[This message has been edited by mark24, 11-23-2003]

Understood. I am still trying to understand this page. It will probably take me a while to understand it correctly as I am tired of this debate already, and I am getting ready to take a nap, LOL. Yeah it is moving fast but with insults more then evidence of evolution. Anyways I am checking out what you posted and the link, gimmie some time, come back tommaorw, I will have a definate answer as to if I agree or not.Thank You
Sonic

I'll do a quick collection on a few sites for you. I didn't say they all agree, but I think we will find most agree with each other and disagree with you.Here is Answers in Genesis from: Caring for the Animals on the Ark | Answers in Genesis And here is the institute for Creation Research from: Acts and Facts Magazine | The Institute for Creation Research
So this one is at a level higher than AIG and two levels higher than you.This one I can't tell for sure what they believe but a quick peek suggests they agree with you.
Page not found - creationdigestThe site you orginally referred to;
Center for Scientific Creation – In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood
Says that dog breeding isn't macro evolution, but I can't find where it says just what macro and micro are. It does say that "Species are observed only going out of existence (extinctions), never coming into existence", so that support you. Unfortunately that statement is wrong. As we will get to on another thread when you have finished being totally clear that the species is the level above which "macro" evolution is what is happening. Right? A new species (by that site, maybe) is "macro"?So we have two major creationist organizations disagreeing with you and a couple that agree with you.Now, if there are new species then you and the last two sites are wrong. Correct? From the above we have more than "few" which support macro evolution.You have not found any Christians which understand the difference between micro and macro correctly? How interesting. Does that mean you do? Are you finally going to make that abundantly clear so that we understand and then you can make it clear to AIG and the ICR as well? Good! Why can't they do drive by postings and either agree or disagree with each other? I don't get the logic in that sentence. In fact, there are a lot of drive by postings and there is a huge amount of disagreement within the movement. As noted, what I understand to be two of the major creationist organizations disagree with you and with other folks on the web.

That was my post.This certainly is moving fast. I missed your post 68. Is that what you meant to refer to? It doesn't seem to have any issues just a repeat of what you have already posted without answering questions about it.In that case you simply used the terms "vertical" and "horizontal" again. When you first introduced them I asked for some more information about how to distinguish between them.It is not to hard to figure out what you are getting at when we talk about the extremes like coat color and from bacteria to man. However that doesn't help at all in figuring out where the boundry is.If I take it that macro evolution starts with the appearance of a new species that means that a new species is "vertical" does it? If one member of an existing species is a bit different that is "horizontal" is it? If the one member of that species is better in some way than it's parents is it vertical or horizontal? Why is it suddenly vertical if the new form can't interbreed with some of it's cousins?You still haven't said if you accept conventional taxonomy as the basis for your claims of what is vertical and horizontal.You and your site imply that "vertical" means an increase in some sort of complexity. I asked before what that was. You haven't gotten back to it.

You're getting tired of it? Well, maybe some other creationist can come along and explain what micro and macro are. But I guess that will be hard since you tell me that Christians don't understand the terms.Insults? Could you point those out?Saying that you haven't answered a question or that you don't look at the evidence isn't an insult. Those kinds of charges are easily dealt with, all you have to do is answer the questions and point out what is wrong with the evidence in enough detail.

quote:

---

Man this threads moving fast!

---

This thing has accumulated about 50 messages each of the past 2 days.I'm going to shut it down, for 24 hours or so, and give eveyone a chance to read what has already been posted.GIVE THE TOPIC A BREATHER! AND I DON'T WANT ANYONE "DOING AN END RUN" AND STARTING A NEW TOPIC IN THIS ONES PLACE!Adminnemooseus------------------
Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads

Bumpity, bumpity, bump.AM

Thank you, Admin.

Alright,After long thought and study of this "phylogene on the congruence between cladistics and stratigraphic data" I would like to confirm my understanding before I make my choice all though I believe I understand it correctly. These are my own definitions, they may be wrong that is why I am asking for your congruence.Congruence: Agreement,harmony.
Cladistics: Recreation of a geneitic tree "or" A system of Classification based off the phylogenetics
Phylogenetic: The development of evolutionary organisims (i.e. macroevolution or organic evolution)
Stratigraphics: The study of rock strata, especially the distribution, deposition, and age of sedimentary rocks(i.e. study of fossils).That is my understanding, and I request your congruence.Thank You
Sonic[This message has been edited by Sonic, 11-26-2003]

I shouldn't be butting in but I think you've got it there. Mark can confirm though.

Ok Nosy,

quote:

---

I'll do a quick collection on a few sites for you. I didn't say they all agree, but I think we will find most agree with each other and disagree with you.
Here is Answers in Genesis

---

AIG would probably be writing about micro-evolution, a genus is nothing more then a classifcation of 2 or more species which could mate like the Wolf and Dog, or Donky and Horse,(i.e. a genera) Which would be considered micro-evolution, because there is no new formation of "new abilites" such as wings, which would allow the new 4 legged family to fly and even if a new species developed from interspecies relations, it would not be considered macro-evolution unless a new ability were formed.The same for the next quote in post 153, both are talking about microevolution. Speciation is allowed as long as no new abilites are formed and if new abilities are formed then it would be macro-evolution, the 3rd link I am not sure what they are saying except regarding natural selection which in my opinion natural selection only stats that the dominate species rules. I agree with this for the most part. The last link I agree with 100%. No comment on the rest of your post.Thank You
Sonic[This message has been edited by Sonic, 11-27-2003]

Hi Sonic,Firstly, kudos. You are the first creationist I've got to even read Benton et al.'s work. [added by edit - actually the second. It was actually a creationist that pointed the paper out to me, in some strange way he thought it supported creation!]. Specifically, in this case the "harmony" is the agreement between cladogram nodes (the branch points) & the order that the fossils are found in the geologic column. Cladistics is an objective method of determining relationships between discrete entities. It produces a cladogram, which for all intents & purposes is an evolutionary tree.It is not in itself a classification system, although it can & is used as such. The cladistic classification system vs the Linnaean one.Phylogenetics is concerned with the evolutionary relationships of organisms. Phylogeny & cladogram, for the purposes of this discussion can be used interchangeably. You may see phrases like "molecular phylogenetics", or "phylogenetic analyses" bandied about, but it's still cladistical analyses. If you see the word "phylogenetic" it usually means a cladistical analyses based upon molecular characters, protein (amino acid), or DNA (nucleotide) sequences rather than morphological characters. Basically correct. Stratigraphics is concerned with the relative ordering of rocks.Mark------------------
"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall[This message has been edited by mark24, 11-27-2003]

Please define PRECISELY what qualifies as a 'new ability'.

Sonic, AIG is precisely (not probably) talking about micro-evolution. They are talking about thier definition of micro-evolution which is in disagreement with yours.In the definition of macro-evolution you gave they are saying that macro-evolution does occur.However, you then agree with the last quote. It appears you are argueing about micro and macro evolution and still haven't gotten straight what you think they are.

Sonic, In which case macroevolution as you define it has been observed. A frameshift mutation produces a bacteria that can digest nylonIf I can pre-empt a few possible responses. AiG claims that the gene was introduced via a plasmid. The sequence was known before & after the mutation, & is the result of a single thymine addition, which is in any case is perfectly possible. Creationists usually then argue that there has been function loss, too, because the original function of the gene has been lost. This is true, but irrelevant. A forelimb turning into a wing is a macroevolutionary change, & function is both lost & gained. Macroevolution doesn't fail to have occurred because function is lost.Mark[This message has been edited by mark24, 11-27-2003]