Summations Only

Hi again idscience, No it doesn't.Nor is that a definition of macroevolution (see Panda in Message 69) How are these novel morphology?Both the bird wing and the bat wing have the same bones in the same order as limbs. What's new about that?The bones in the leg are the same kinds of bones found in the fins of transitional fossils (like Tiktaalik and friends). What's novel about that?Even the fin evolved from the leg evolved from the fin uses the same bones in the same order as the limbs, which are in the same order as the original fins. What's novel about that.Now, if you would be so kind as to define macroevolution, then we can look and see if it can explain these changes. No it doesn't.(a) Macroevolution does not need to use the term "information" at all, and
(b) you now need to define "information" in a way that we can measure and determine whether or not it increases. Scientists avoid this by using terms that are defined and testable. So what is your definition for macroevolution? You provide that and then we can discuss the necessary time parameters that would be involved. So define macroevolution and then we can look and see if it can explain this. Again, once you define macroevolution we can look and see if it can explain this.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : added + clrtyEdited by RAZD, : mre clrty

Is this an example of macro or micro-evolution? Or just the creator with some sense of humor.Page not found – My Blog
http://stickinsect.files.wordpress.com/...illed-platypus.gifSay a dog grows a beak is it just a dog with a micro-evolved beak or a new species? I think this is where the micro/macro definitions get a bit clunky.How about mice that start from the same family but grow apart in to two different species of mice that can't reproduce with each other. Is this micro or macro evolution?Edited by Philo, : No reason given.

Because there's no possible design explanation for phylogenetic concordance between these species. The concordance is real - less than one chance in several million of being coincidental - and the only possible explanation is that they repeatedly speciated in concert over evolutionary time.If there was a design explanation, you would have been able to provide it, or someone already would have. Your retreat proves the hollowness of your position. Probably, but speciation is macroevolution. Accepting this example means you've already conceded the debate.

No single individual is to blame, but collectively the participants have turned this thread into the worst example of snark I've seen in a while.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.Please reduce the snark. Please be part of the solution, not part of the problem. I will suspend for one day those who do not appear to be following this request.Edited by Admin, : Grammar.

It is an example of a monotreme. Neither.
It would be an example of a massive mutation that would probably result in the premature death of that dog. It is both.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Good morning Percy, And idscience could easily have looked this up on wikipedia:
Macroevolution - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Macroevolution is evolution on a scale of separated gene pools.[1] Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution,[2] which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population.[3]

​

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.

​

The evolutionary course of Equidae (wide family including all horses and related animals) is often viewed as a typical example of macroevolution. The earliest known genus, Hyracotherium (now reclassified as a palaeothere), was a herbivore animal resembling a dog that lived in the early Cenozoic. As its habitat transformed into an open arid grassland, selective pressure required that the animal become a fast grazer. Thus elongation of legs and head as well as reduction of toes gradually occurred, producing the only extant genus of Equidae, Equus.[4]

---

Bold added.Other definitions are provided by:

quote:

---

Berkeley:

​

The Definition:

​

Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.

---

Microevolution - small scale evolution - is the changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next.Macroevolution - large scale evolution - is the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations.

quote:

---

UMich:

​

Definitions of Biological Evolution

​

We begin with two working definitions of biological evolution, which capture these two facets of genetics and differences among life forms. Then we will ask what is a species, and how does a species arise?

​

Definition 1:

​

Changes in the genetic composition of a population with the passage of each generation

​

Definition 2:

​

The gradual change of living things from one form into another over the course of time, the origin of species and lineages by descent of living forms from ancestral forms, and the generation of diversity

​

Note that the first definition emphasizes genetic change. It commonly is referred to as microevolution. The second definition emphasizes the appearance of new, physically distinct life forms that can be grouped with similar appearing life forms in a taxonomic hierarchy. It commonly is referred to as macroevolution.

---

So again:Microevolution - Changes in the genetic composition of a population with the passage of each generation.Macroevolution - The gradual change of living things from one form into another over the course of time, the origin of species and lineages by descent of living forms from ancestral forms, and the generation of diversity.These help define what "above the level of species" means: the generation of new species and the formation of nested hierarchies of descent from common ancestor populations and the generation of diversity.In this regard this: 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: Pelycodus Copelemur 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: Pelycodus Copelemur and Notharctus that together form a family.And this is but the tip of the iceberg of evidence for macroevolution.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : clrtyEdited by RAZD, : more detail added at endEdited by RAZD, : clrty

Alas, this does not seem to be idboys definition. So I guess this thread should be closed. Message 48 Message 67I will not ay anymore as it will result in a suspension.But this says it all. Message 49Edited by Theodoric, : subtitle change

No, of course you haven't bothered to read. The gods forbid you should attempt to think! Typical creationist! Expending all that energy to avoid answering a very simple and pertinent question. You're nothing new at all.

Okay, so the animals are evolving. There's no questioning that. But gross morphological change takes many, many, generations. You cannot point to something and say: "See this right here, this is macroevolution". We're going to have to infer it.Now, when we look back at the fossil record, we see snapshots of various species. When we see a string of similiar species with minor changes between them showing gross morphological change over many multiple species, we can infer that macroevolution has happened. We have the mechanism that through mutation and selection, minor changes are made to the populations of the one species, and they build up until the species gradually looks like something completely different. Shrink a leg here, flatten an arm there, yadda yadda, you can mould one form into another with a whole bunch of very minor changes. Whales is a good example: Or horses: So we have one explanation here, that the later species evolved from the earlier ones.How else do you propse that those species got there? We have no other mechanism for the emergence? Just saying: "It could have been common design" doesn't help us at all. It could have been god poofing them into existence too, but we don't have any reason to suspect that it was. With evolution, we do have an explantion, and it works. So where else could Rodhocetus come from if not a previous common ancestor with Dalanistes? I mean, how else do you get an animal here besides from another animal giving birth to it? If the animal has to come from a previous animal, then obviously macroevolution is a necessity.Further, take the nested hierarchy. There isn't one single example of a species that falls outside of the nested hierarchy. Once you get backbones, everything derived from that has backbones and nothing else above it does. Today, there isn't a single animal outside of birds that has feathers. One explanation is that they stem from a common ancestor. Once feathers emerged, and we have examples of the stages of that emergence that look like this: Once they emerged, all the bird species that come after that have some variation of the feather, and no species outside of birds have any feather at all. So how would that happen except for common ancestry? You can say: "it could have been common design" but again, that doesn't help us explain everything. HOW could it have been common design? How would that work at all? How would every bird have feathers and no non-birds have any feathers by design? Why not give the flying squirrel some feathers so he could fly better? The evolutionary explanation, that the flying squirrel is a mammal and not a bird so it could never have feathers, makes perfect sense but a designed explanation does not.For me, that's the best evidence of macroevolution. The nested hierarchy, a working explanation from evolution, and no single example of anything that falls outside of either. Too, we have no other idea how animals can get here besides from other animals. Simply: Macroevolution works as an explanation and nothing falsifies it. Too, there is no other helpful explantion to compete with it. As it sits, from the evidence, macroevolution is the only thing we can infer.

FIRST GENETIC EVIDENCE UNCOVERED OF HOW MAJOR CHANGES
IN BODY SHAPES OCCURRED DURING EARLY ANIMAL EVOLUTIONUniversity of California, San Diego: External Relations: News & Information: News Releases : Science

Biologists at the University of California, San Diego have uncovered the first genetic evidence that explains how large-scale alterations to body plans were accomplished during the early evolution of animals.

​

In an advance online publication February 6 by Nature of a paper scheduled to appear in Nature, the scientists show how mutations in regulatory genes that guide the embryonic development of crustaceans and fruit flies allowed aquatic crustacean-like arthropods, with limbs on every segment of their bodies, to evolve 400 million years ago into a radically different body plan: the terrestrial six-legged insects.

​

The achievement is a landmark in evolutionary biology, not only because it shows how new animal body plans could arise from a simple genetic mutation, but because it effectively answers a major criticism creationists had long leveled against evolutionthe absence of a genetic mechanism that could permit animals to introduce radical new body designs.

​

The problem for a long time has been over this issue of macroevolution, says William McGinnis, a professor in UCSD’s Division of Biology who headed the study. How can evolution possibly introduce big changes into an animal’s body shape and still generate a living animal? Creationists have argued that any big jump would result in a dead animal that wouldn’t be able to perpetuate itself. And until now, no one’s been able to demonstrate how you could do that at the genetic level with specific instructions in the genome.

​

The UCSD team, which included Matthew Ronshaugen and Nadine McGinnis, showed in its experiments that this could be accomplished with relatively simple mutations in a class of regulatory genes, known as Hox, that act as master switches by turning on and off other genes during embryonic development. Using laboratory fruit flies and a crustacean known as Artemia, or brine shrimp, the scientists showed how modifications in the Hox gene Ubxwhich suppresses 100 percent of the limb development in the thoracic region of fruit flies, while its crustacean counterpart from Artemia only represses 15%would have allowed the crustacean-like ancestors of Artemia, with limbs on every segment, to lose their hind legs and diverge 400 million years ago into the six-legged insects.

​

[snip]

===================29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
The Scientific Case for Common Descent
Copyright 1999-2004 by Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.Talk Reason: arguments against creationism, intelligent design, and religious apologetics

Evolution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses. In evolutionary debates one is apt to hear evolution roughly parceled between the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution". Microevolution, or change beneath the species level, may be thought of as relatively small scale change in the functional and genetic constituencies of populations of organisms. That this occurs and has been observed is generally undisputed by critics of evolution. What is vigorously challenged, however, is macroevolution. Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory it thus entails common ancestry, descent with modification, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all above the species level (Freeman and Herron 2004; Futuyma 1998; Ridley 1993).

​

Common descent is a general descriptive theory that concerns the genetic origins of living organisms (though not the ultimate origin of life). The theory specifically postulates that all of the earth's known biota are genealogically related, much in the same way that siblings or cousins are related to one another. Thus, macroevolutionary history and processes necessarily entail the transformation of one species into another and, consequently, the origin of higher taxa. Because it is so well supported scientifically, common descent is often called the "fact of evolution" by biologists. For these reasons, proponents of special creation are especially hostile to the macroevolutionary foundation of the biological sciences.

​

This article directly addresses the scientific evidence in favor of common descent and macroevolution. This article is specifically intended for those who are scientifically minded but, for one reason or another, have come to believe that macroevolutionary theory explains little, makes few or no testable predictions, is unfalsifiable, or has not been scientifically demonstrated.

​

[snip; follow the link for many pages of details]

OK, I have presented evidence that macroevolution, as defined by scientists, occurs.

Hi Theodoric, It no longer matters what definition idscience is or was using, he has forfeited his position to provide a definition in spite of numerous requests, and now must live with the definitions provided by us.If he doesn't like those definitions or disagrees with them, tough: he had his chance and did not take it.We now see numerous posts with evidence of macroevolution provided by a number of posters. These examples fit the definitions provided.His only recourse are to accept, falsify or deny the evidence.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : coding

I'm flexible.

That is completely false. Common descent is a TESTABLE hypothesis.For example, we can predict that we should find the same retroviral insertions at the same positions in both the human and chimp genomes. This is a test for common ancestry. So what do we find? When they sequenced the human genome they found about 200,000 retroviral insertions (Human Genome paper). They then sequenced the chimp genome, found the ERV's, and compared them to the human genome (chimp genome paper). What did they find? Out of 200,000 retroviral insertions in the human genome less than 100 are not found in the chimp genome. For the chimp genome, only around 300 are not found in the human genome. There are literally hundreds of thousands of shared ERV's, each one ironclad evidence of common ancestry, and this is just the tip of the iceberg. Absolutely. If we found that vast majority of shared retroviral insertions did not produce the PATTERN of homology that the theory of evolution predicts then that would contradict common ancestry. For example, if we found that only half of the orthologous retroviral insertions shared by humans and orangutans were shared by chimps then this would falsify common ancestry. On the flip side, common design makes absolutely no predictions on the expected PATTERN of shared features. This is why common ancestry is preferred over common design, because it is testable and it passes those tests. Wrong on both accounts. HGT is an observed mechanism, not a work around. Also, you can detect HGT separtely from DNA that has been inherited vertically. Secondly, HGT events are random mutations. They are a change in the DNA sequence that is random with respect to fitness. DNA that is transferred horizontally passes through the same filter of natural selection that all changes in DNA go through.What we have NEVER observed is a supernatural deity changing DNA.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

All that requires is novel DNA sequences which are produced by mutation. Macro-evolution does not require an increase in information as it is defined by ID/creationists. It never has. Evolution is not a random process, so why would it need to build things randomly? Why would evolution need to build the flagellum in this fashion? Modification of already existing and functional systems is how evolution would have done it, not in the fashion you are describing.

Ah - your opening post and the subsequent one ........ ..... tells volumes about your problem. Basically, the second statement shows clearly that you have a 'kindergarten' view of the ToE - as in Pokemon or Teenage Mutant Turtles (or the Hollywood version as in 'X-Men').If you really think that the ToE postulates phylogenic changes (from one individual to the next) as great as an insect changing to a mammal (such as 'morphing' as in Pokemon) then no wonder you cannot present a coherent description of 'macro-evolution'.
You seriously need to do some reading on the subject first. The guys here will help you - and already have by referencing dozens of starting articles.Look on this as a genuine offer of help re scientific knowledge. If you knew how you actually sound to those with scientific training on here you would cringe in embarrassment. You may not be aware but many members on here are either practising scientists or very clued-up laypeople.We have representatives from many science fields here including - genetics, ecology, archaeology, geology, astronomy, mathematics, biochemistry to name but a few of the subjects. Most of those you have engaged in this debate are very well versed in one or more of these subjects.Regarding this 'micro-evolution and 'macro-evolution' can you please answer the following (thanks to Rrhain in a previous thread - can't remember offhand which - for this question).If 1+1=2 why can't 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1=10?When you understand this question and the answer it implies you will start to see part of where you are going wrong.I would also be interested in your definition of the Theory of Evolution (contrary to popular opinion it can be stated in a couple of sentences and incorporating just two tenets — can you take a stab at this?) as it would help us know how you ‘view’ the theory and therefore whether you understand the theory as the actual scientists who use it on a day to day basis do (I’m 99.9% sure you don’t but it’s best coming from you).BTW: Failing to read posts and then proudly and glibly announcing to those taking time to answer YOUR post is not only profoundly rude but is no way to enlightenment!--------------------------------------------------------------------------------