Macro and Micro Evolution

Well you still haven't addressed the evidence of the transitional fossils we do have.I don't think that intentionally ignoring the evidence for macroevolution puts you in a posiiton to honestly say that it does not exist.

Sonic, I must congratulate you on showing more thoughtfulness and reasonableness than many, many of others here.You post is pretty complex so it is hard to answer all at once.But there are a few biggies: Well, if this is actually what he is talking about (and I would agree it could be but he isn't clear enough to know) then we ALL agree with him. It isn't going to happen except for a few very rare events (HOX gene being a possibility). This is what is known as a "strawman" fallacy. It is NOT at all what 'evolutionists' are trying to claim happens. I don't think I follow this all that well. I also think that we can't do a good job of calculating what the "right" number might be. It just doesn't work that way.Let's say that there were no transitional fossils at all when Darwin put forward his ToE. (that is pretty close to try actually, or I think so). So the theory has some good points going for it but one whole area of evidence isn't there.Then lets say we find just ONE example of a transitional. That's about what happened just after the publication of the Origin of Species (archeopteryx). Do we have enough? Is it all finished? No, of course not. We know have a little more confidence in the idea. If we were pretty confident for other reasons we are now more confident. If we didn't believe it at all before, we might be willing to think about it a bit but still not believe it.After a century we find 10's and 100's of different transitionals. Have we finished? No. Are we more confident that we were? Yes. Is there some dark line drawn below which we have zero confidence and above which we have 100% confidence? NO! As the mass of data piles up it becomes more and more reasonable to accept the idea.If, in the meantime, no one can come up with another idea that does as good a job of explaining things we also get to be more confident. If other, whole new, areas of data are found (e.g., genetics) we start to get really, really sure. Have we crossed any dark line? Yes, for some individuals but No not for everyone. We each draw that line in a different place (which should be obvious from this forum, LOL ).The real question to ask is not "How many do I need to prove this idea?" but rather 'What new data do I need to distinguish this idea from any competing ideas?" This shows more insight than many people, on both sides of the debate, seem to be able to show. We all cling to what we want to believe, ALL of us. That is why the process of science, when corectly applied, tries to check and recheck whatever anyone says, even an "authority". Look how much effort still goes into checking out Einsteins theories.

Sonic, I must congratulate you on showing more thoughtfulness and reasonableness than many, many of others here.You post is pretty complex so it is hard to answer all at once.But there are a few biggies: Well, if this is actually what he is talking about (and I would agree it could be but he isn't clear enough to know) then we ALL agree with him. It isn't going to happen except for a few very rare events (HOX gene being a possibility). This is what is known as a "strawman" fallacy. It is NOT at all what 'evolutionists' are trying to claim happens. I don't think I follow this all that well. I also think that we can't do a good job of calculating what the "right" number might be. It just doesn't work that way.Let's say that there were no transitional fossils at all when Darwin put forward his ToE. (that is pretty close to try actually, or I think so). So the theory has some good points going for it but one whole area of evidence isn't there.Then lets say we find just ONE example of a transitional. That's about what happened just after the publication of the Origin of Species (archeopteryx). Do we have enough? Is it all finished? No, of course not. We know have a little more confidence in the idea. If we were pretty confident for other reasons we are now more confident. If we didn't believe it at all before, we might be willing to think about it a bit but still not believe it.After a century we find 10's and 100's of different transitionals. Have we finished? No. Are we more confident that we were? Yes. Is there some dark line drawn below which we have zero confidence and above which we have 100% confidence? NO! As the mass of data piles up it becomes more and more reasonable to accept the idea.If, in the meantime, no one can come up with another idea that does as good a job of explaining things we also get to be more confident. If other, whole new, areas of data are found (e.g., genetics) we start to get really, really sure. Have we crossed any dark line? Yes, for some individuals but No not for everyone. We each draw that line in a different place (which should be obvious from this forum, LOL ).The real question to ask is not "How many do I need to prove this idea?" but rather 'What new data do I need to distinguish this idea from any competing ideas?" This shows more insight than many people, on both sides of the debate, seem to be able to show. We all cling to what we want to believe, ALL of us. That is why the process of science, when corectly applied, tries to check and recheck whatever anyone says, even an "authority". Look how much effort still goes into checking out Einsteins theories.

There are two important considerations when considering the evolution of the human eye.Firstly soft tissue very rarely fossilises - and eyes are almost always entirely soft tissue (the MAJOR exception is the fluorite lenses that trilobites had).Secondly as Darwin did discover there is a whole array of physically intermediate forms of eye, so there is no obvious barrier to a human eye evolving.As for the initial appearance of some form of eye, I think that can be left to Zhimbo in the ongoing debate.

I dont presume the fossil record to be even a indication(i.e. evidence) Unless we can show 1% of the entire fossil record to be intermediates. I have explained this in my post 210 when responding to NOSYNED.If you can show that we do have 1% of the entire fossil record as intermediates or transitional fossils, I will except that the fossil record is a indication of evolution.Thank You
Sonic

The question would be at what point in time did the eye become a organ or What form of life had the first pair of eyes or eye. We would need to see a species with no eye then see a species with a eye and conclude that the new species with the eye/s came from the species with no eye/s. This difference would be macro-evolution, that is if it can be shown that the new species or family member, can be shown to have come from the first(that species without the eye). Now concerning you information on the eye, those changes would be considered microevolution because it is a small genetic change, which changes frequently from generation to generation but regardless it would still be microevolution because each change is done in small steps. In otherwords the formation of an eye would be considered macro and the changes to that eye would be micro. Understand?Thank You
Sonic

I simple can't follow how you can arrive at any such number. Could you explain more slowly what you are thinking to arrive at a number?Plus how do you calculate what we do have?Plus, since many species (and the individuals that are the real things which make up any group) stay the same (mostly) for extended periods it seems to me that 1% of the fossils found being a "transitional" is a bit steep.

Tell you what, why don't you back up your own assertions rather than asking other people to disprove them ?And while you're at it you can explain why you're dodging the evidence I raised. You'd think that if your previous failure to address the intermediates that do exist was an honest mistake that you wouldn't be repeating the same pattern again. But you are.

Thank You for the complement and what are the biggies? It seems to be that you find it more importent that the data reflecting from the fossil record is evolution.I am saying we need more of that same kind of data because we dont have enough to come to a conclusion. I am only saying that 1% of the entire fossil record must be transitional fossils(i.e. intermediates) It does not matter if the fossils are micro or macro fossils, it just matters that we have 1%, really 1% of the 1% of fossils we have is a very small figure and it should be found easily. I stand firm in thinking we dont have enough data to suggest evolution witht he fossil record alone. Thus the fossil record is removed from the evolution tree in my thoughts unless we can show it to have more data then what it has, or maybe we do have that 1% we are talking about but no body has done the calculations. I believe I have seen the fossil record for the most part and it appears we dont have that 1% but I did'nt do the calculations. I will if somebody else does in order to confirm it.Thank You
Sonic

No I'm not sure I do understand. The original Darwinian theory was that all changes were gradual and that these piled up over time to produce large total effects. This would (and is taken as) including the formation of a complex eye. If this is your definition then we all agree there is (almost) only 'micro-evolution'. And we have significant data that shows it can add up to large changes.What would you need to see to tell that small changes can add up to large total results?

The formation and development of a organ. Pick one, the eye, the brain, the heart,etcThank You
Sonic[This message has been edited by Sonic, 11-28-2003]

Excuse me for butting in here, but I have a question for Sonic.Well, not necessarily a question, but more of an observation. Evolution doesn't claim that one species had NO eye and then another species had a fully formed eye. Correct me if I am reading your posts wrong, but it seems that you are claiming macro-e would be a fully functioning organ coming into being in one fell swoop. The biologists onboard can get into particulars, but MOST evolution is seen as small genetic changes adding up to eventually make large differences.Sticking with the eye, evolution doesn't look for one species without an eye and then the next species have a fully formed eye. The evolution of the eye is seen as starting with photosensitive cells, then a small indentation to hold these cells, this indentation gradually deepening, then gradually closing in to make a pin-hole...etc. There are innumerable examples of each and every step in this process right now.I just think that you are still a little confused as to what exactly the TOE predicts. Just remember that arguing against major organs coming into being fully formed is arguing a strawman. That is not what the TOE predicts.Once again, I may be reading these posts incorrectly, but that is the impression that I am getting from your posts.------------------
Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

Yes, Sonic, it would help if you would answer Asgara's questions.

- Be informed that macro-evolution would be done through genetic drift and hidden mutation. I believe, that is over time but over time the change would not be apparent untill the eye was formed.I did think that the "TOE" explained that the version of macro-e I am stating occured through the process of genetic drift or hidden mutation, If it is not then it is a bad conception of my own. (I hope that is not confusing)Further more,If you agree that Macro does not occur in my version(i.e. large changes through genetic drift and mutation). And that Micro does occur in my version, but does lead into big changes, then I disagree. This would make Micro and Macro identical. I have explained Micro to be small genetic changes only.I believe that microevolution has only small changes which are limited to small genetic changes which could be speciation, mutation, but then limited even more by natural selction because half formed organs are not useful nore attrative.Thank You
Sonic[This message has been edited by Sonic, 11-28-2003]

This article shows the possible intermediate steps in producing an eye. It presents currently living species for examples of the suggested intermediate steps in order to show that the intermediate stages are, indeed, useful to the animal having them. (The article starts off with flight; eyes a little further down the page.)
Page not found - American AtheistsIf you have QuickTime or RealPlayer, this link has a 4 minute video explaining with models how a primitive eye could gradually become a better camera eye.
Evolution: Library: Evolution of the EyeI found these articles on this page, which has a few more links:
Account SuspendedIncidentally, the topic of the evolution of eyes is being debated formally by Zhimbo and Joralex on this very board:
EvC Forum: Eye Evolution: Zhimbo vs Joralex