Summations Only

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

Hi IDScience,About the best evidence for macroevolution, many believers in ID share evolution's view about the phylogenetic tree and macroevolution. 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.You seem to have a different view, that the designer steps in and creates entire organs and limbs all at once within a single generation. Is that correct? If so, how do you reconcile your views with Behe's, especially since your view is contradicted by the evidence, for example, for the gradual evolution of modern limbs from the fins of ancient fish.--Percy

Evolution's explanation for the origin of new information is mutation. DNA contains the information, only mutations can change, augment or diminish that information, so mutations is the answer.But we're not here to explain evolution. You were asking about the evidence for macroevolution, and now that a moderator has stepped in (see the announcement at the top of the page as well as Message 79) I think we should be able to get you an answer.--Percy

Hi IDScience,When people try to answer your questions, you seem to be arguing that that can't be the answer because you think it is wrong. Are you looking for an answer you agree with, or the answer that evolution provides? We can tell you what evolution says, and if you're interested we can tell you why, but we can't make you think it is correct.You say you want the information we provide for your website. As long as you present this information accurately it's okay if you think it's wrong.--Percy

It might more accurately be stated that Mendel had it right and Darwin didn't have an answer. Darwin was baffled when it came to divining a mechanism by which traits could be passed through the generations and not become diluted. But what has this to do with evidence for macroevolution?--Percy

If by "bulk microevolutionary events" you mean a huge number of mutations within a single generation, then I don't think anyone on the science side would assume this as playing any significant role in evolution. Most, including myself, would probably think it extremely unlikely unless the population was living inside a uranium mine. If "single microevolutionary change" is actually referring to your idea about "bulk microevolutionary events" from the previous sentence, then I've already said this seems very unlikely. Death, with the effect that the organisms fail to contribute to the next generation, seems the likely outcome of huge numbers of simultaneous mutations.But if "single microevolutionary change" refers to the normal mutation rate, then a new species will never be the result. Microevolution across a single generation never causes speciation. It's in the definition of microevolution, which is evolution within a species.--Percy

Hi Big Al!I can see now that by "bulk microevolutionary events" you did not mean mutations, but in that case the term has no meaning. Every single gene gets remixed during sexual reproduction, one allele from each parent. Always. In the sense you intended it, there's no such thing as non-bulk microevolutionary events.But again, what has this to do evidence for macroevolution?--Percy

Hi Big Al,I'm not trying to avoid your question. It's just that your question reflects a lack of understanding of what Mendel actually discovered, and I don't see the point of a discussion about Mendelian inheritance in a thread about the evidence for macroevolution, but let me give this a try and I'll try to be brief: The short answer is no. The slightly longer answer is that Mendel didn't figure out any mechanics, if by mechanics you mean what was actually going on in the cell. For Mendel genes and alleles were conceptual units - he didn't know what genes or alleles actually were, or even whether they were properties of cells or not. And he didn't know anything about mutations, which play a key role in the macroevolutionary arena.Speciation does not require mutations, but large scale of macroevolutionary change for which evidence is being requested in this thread could not take place without mutations.--Percy

Hi Big Al,I'm not sure exactly where the confusion lies, but I am sure that Mendel and microevolution isn't the topic. Maybe you could propose something over in the Proposed New Topics forum.--Percy

It would have been nice if an actual back-and-forth discussion could have developed. It didn't seem to me like either side much wanted one, and half of one side couldn't even figure out what the topic was.--Percy