macroevolution is originally a scientific definition of a process
I am not surprised.
Are you willing to learn?
Lots of arguing about definitions, and species, and how that proves macro-evolution. convenient for evolutionary scientists to have defined macro-evolution so that it can be proved so easily. ....
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, "Variabilität 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. ...
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.
... It has been more important to satisfy the minimalist definition of macro-evolution than to offer the evidence for the overiding principal for it, large morphological changes occur. ...
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?
... The only defence offered for that is, "enough time will do it". The rest is arguing about speciation, which many believe is just variation or micro-evolution. The only difference is evolutionary scientists decided it wasn't.
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.
I have read, speciation is defined as an isolated repoductive community. Although many separate species are able to reproduce with each other. I guess that doesn't matter.
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.
No one seems interested that the best microbiology has been able to accomplish is 1+1=2. No one is interested in the boundries and limitations of mutational changes, or that just about all the changes involve loss of information. Information loss, cannot build anything new. Just faith that enough time can do the job.
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.
Anyone could look at old fossils and make relational assumptions. Especially if they are commonly designed.
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?
Oh, Ida pushes back divergence x of years, oh wait, Ida is just a lemur, never mind. Because evolution is a "fact", the relationships made between fossils are contrived. Trees, branches, divergence, is just an attempt to make sense of a premise that may very well be wrong.
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).
I see nothing here, no evidence outside variation to suggest evolution can invent new organs, limbs, or body plans. The cornerstone, and backbone of this belief, is TIME. Certainly over billions of years anything can happen, right!
Thanks guys for the excersize in futility. I was hoping to read something new but its the same ol thing, variation has no limits time cannot overcome.
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.
I believe the science of mapping ancestrial descent is in the mess it is because the theory is flawed. Paleo's homologies are not matching molecular homologies (some are some are a mess), and even within molecular homologies branching is conflicting. IE: DNA and RNA. the once simple tree is now discribed by scientists as a "mosaic", or a "thicket" because there is no clear line of descent. The seemingly all over the place similarities are better explained by common design. What may look related, is only because of the similar design features.
And yet, interestingly, science and scientists are not perturbed. Perhaps because there is not the major issue you seem to think there is.
Dawkins once said that nature only has the appearance of design. Maybe, because it was. I know I have not changed anyones minds here and that wan't my goal anyhow. Most of you if not all think I am an IDiot, conspirator who just wants to kill science and force religion on school students. That I have not one cintilla of evidence to believe what I say I believe. It's all eithre a ploy, or I am just plain stupid. I have heard is all before, many times.
Let me leave on this note: I can see the logic in believing in common ancestry. There are some complelling evidences. IE: progression of fossils in strata, variation in the species, common looking features in the fossil record, and similar genome homologies. I am not saying your all nuts. Many very smart people believe common ancestry to be logical, and I can see how they get there.
I however, don't get all the way there when adding in common design. Design theory is more compelling to me given the barriers mutation and change have come up against over 150 years to trying to engineer changes in labs.
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.
The fact that scientists have not been able to produce anything even close to changes beyond "speciation", ...
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.
... Not just new species, used in the context that they are actually new animals. The definition of species doesn't even require a morphological change. ...
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.
... So arguing that macro-evolution is proven by speciation doen't do much for me ...
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.
... Especially when the definition is inconsistant anyways. IE: interspecies breeding does occur, so how can species be defined as an isolated reproductive community. ...
They can be isolated by behavior, geology, timing, and a number of other barriers to breeding in the wild.
I respect everyone here, I respect the conclusions made here and the logic used in getting there. I have an opposing position which makes me your opponent, not your enemy.
You have an opposing position that you have not supported, that is the "enemy" -- not you.
Thanks everyone, I enjoyed the discussion.
Feel free to come back, particularly if you have any new questions.
quote: “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.” (Dawkins Foundation)
quote: The deception here is in his use of the word evolution. Evolution covers everything now. Any change of anything over time. How convenient is that. Now statement like his can be made and be technically be correct. Convenient, the evolutionist lobby has been able to define their belief in a way that they can defend it.
What is the tactful word for the concept of telling deliberate untruths? Would mendacious work do describe this paragraph accurately? To mild I think.
quote: If a student addresses a professor in doubt of abiogenesis he/she may be met with a barrage of indignant. How dare you question what has been fact for decades. Your ignorance of the existence of the mountains of overwhelming evidence supporting evolution makes me question whether you should even be in my class, or even attending a academy of higher learning. Maybe you should go back to your flat earth believing inbred relatives and plant corn the rest of your life.
The Theory of Evolution does not address the origin of life. This is proof that Dawkins was spot-on. Not evidence, proof!
Although I do consider the wicked part of the Dawkins quote very seriously, too.
quote: I respect everyone here, I respect the conclusions made here and the logic used in getting there. I have an opposing position which makes me your opponent, not your enemy
Deception is all creationists have. I don’t respect mendacity. idscience, I don't respect you as a person, neither your deception, at all.
You're just a person for whom it is impossible to ever tell the truth. Persons like you would try to steal the oxygen out of my breath.
Edited by Pressie, : Added the last quote, changed spelling of "creastionists" to creationists and added another sentence in the middle and at the end.
quote: I will data mine the site for any new perspectives and information.
This one is funny. While you do your “data mining” (which in reality means reading creationist “articles”), thousands of scientists all over the world will be collecting real data doing real research in their respective real fields of expertise; collecting empirical, verifiable data.
A novice creationist doing “data mining” won’t even be a blip on the radar screen, although creationists will tell everyone in churches that they did “research” by doing “data mining”!
Summary: Macroevolution is defined as a process that was already observed.
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:
Message 67: macro evolution has to be able to produce novel morphology.
A wing has to be built from a limb, a leg from a fin.
Macro-evolution has to demonstrate how the increase of information occurred.
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.
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: PelycodusCopelemur 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: PelycodusCopelemur and Notharctus that together form a family.
And this is but the tip of the iceberg of evidence for macroevolution.
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:
Message 93: Another post with no information. The def of macro is changes above the level of species. According to many evolution experts, speciation is macro-evolution, so that is no help. Does not get me to my questions.
photoreceptor pathway? flagellum motor?
how are they built by a blind undirected process?
... 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.
"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 bliss—I 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.
What is the tactful word for the concept of telling deliberate untruths? Would mendacious work do describe this paragraph accurately? To mild I think.
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.
Deception is all creationists have. I don’t respect mendacity. idscience, I don't respect you as a person, neither your deception, at all.
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:
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).
I will data mine the site for any new perspectives and information. I'll probably pop up again for another thrashing on another subject so your boys better keep up to date on current events, so I don't catch anybody with their "genes" down, sort o speak.
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.
"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."
The evidence for macroevolution is all about the nested hierarchies. Always has been, always will be. Until ID supporters address this topic there really is nothing more to say.
Could an intelligent designer produce a nested hierarchy? Yes. Could an intelligent designer produce an unnested hierarchy? Yes. Could an intelligent designer produce any and all conceivable combinations of features? Yes. Common design is a worthless and unfalsifiable mechanism. It explains nothing. It really is no different than saying that Leprechauns can plant fingerprints at crime scenes, so we should throw out all forensic evidence.
The theory of evolution predicts that we should see a nested hierarchy in species that do not activel participitate in horizontal genetic transfer. What do we observe in metazoans? A nested hierarchy. This is the evidence for macroevoluiton, evidence that ID supporters refuse to deal with.
I'm sorry but all you are posting is bullshit and word salad and has absolutely nothing to do with what Mendel discovered or anything else that I can tell. Nothing in Medel's work has anything to do with evolution (change over time), whether micro-evolution or macro-evolution.
Totally disagree with the above. Mendel showed that traits can appear and disappear using his rules of heridity. Natural selection can then act on those traits as in the case of the peppered moths. The peppered moths example is classically used as evidence of evolution. Actually no real change has occurred but rather an existing homology is wiped out (or nearly wiped out). This is micro-evolution in action.
Actually no evolution took place as the grey moths returned again when the environment changed. This still doesn't explain how new traits, limbs, organs or features appear in the gene pool. This is just one example of how the available DNA/gene pool might shrink.
This was a classic EVC thread. ID/Creo posted an OP stating there is no evidence. Reams of evidence was presented. The original poster did nothing to counter evidence just claimed he wouldn't accept the evidence.
All IDboy and BigAl did this whole thread was hand wave, and go on a Gish gallop. Oh almost forgot meals and meals of word salad. They again, as always, have nothing to counter the evidence except to say it isn't evidence.
ID/Creos will never ever learn. They truly believe that attempting to undermine the TOE will somehow strengthen their pet ideas. The TOE could be utterly destroyed as a Theory today(by scientific research) and that would in no way strengthen ID or creationism. They have an utter lack of understanding the nature of evidence and why they need it, if they want their ideas to be taken seriously.
Ain't gonna happen. They have nothing, know they have nothing, so resort to attacking the TOE.
Nothing new to see here folks. Move along.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
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.
A creo comes in, asks for evidence, hand waves it away and displays a deep misunderstanding about the nature of scientific investigation. And this morning, the sun rose in the east.
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist