That is my point, inference, guess, speculation, conjecture.
Well that's science for you... but the cool part is that it works! I mean, it put a freakin' man on the moon!
I'm pretty sure we can trust it with something as simple as the origin of species. Unless, of course, you have another method of investigation that works better? Or a different model and mechanism here for what we are discussing? I haven't seen it yet.
Until then, macroevolution is the only answer we've got.
There it is again infer.
You say that like its a bad thing... all of science is from inference, so what?
That's just the way it works, and it works great, dontcha think? I mean, here we are communicating over vast distances instantly via computers that science gave us. Why the sudden lack of trust when it comes to the origin of species?
I am not arguing that variations can effect species. The problem is the extrapolation to those changes will over billions of years turn a dinosaur into a bird, or, what ever you think that horse came from into the horse.
But that's what the evidence suggests. That's what science concludes. That's just the way this world is. Why do you say that's a "problem"?
The fossil record has its tree, molecular biology has their tree/trees. When DNA is followed it points to one tree, when RNA is followed it points gives a different picture.
All those trees are exactly identical.
I sure would like a response to the photoreceptor and flagellum.
They evolved just like everything else. How else (read: by what mechanism) could they have come about? Any ideas?
How about the mouse is still a mouse. No morphological changes, no intermediary structures or systems. What about all the different species that can breed together? human and Neanderthal for one example. I would consider this micro. A variation, not a transformation.
Curiously, what you consider it is irrelevant. This thread is about evidence for macroevolution according to the scientific definitions provided
... 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. ...
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.
Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses ... 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.
Macroevolution - large scale evolution - is the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations.
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 ... 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.
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.
Now that you have a definition to use, and people have provided you with evidence of evolution that meets the criteria as defined, do you agree that your thread question is answered?
Re: idscience and the definition of macroevolution
I don't care so much about what you call it, I am interested in how it occurs?
Speciation occurs because all populations are in a constant state of genetic change, so when two populations becomes separated, they develop independently. Eventually they develop to a point where they can no longer interbreed, and since we define "species" along reproductive communities, that's the point at which speciation is said to have occurred.
Re: idscience and the definition of macroevolution
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.
That is my point, inference, guess, speculation, conjecture.
You seem to be equating those terms, as if they all mean the same thing. They don't.
There it is again infer.
All of science is based on inference. You can't name one single scientific theory that doesn't rely on inference. If you are going to condemn the Theory of Evolution because it relies on inference, you are condemning all of science. You are of course free to do so, but just keep in mind that this is in fact a condemnation of all of science and not just the Theory of Evolution.
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
Re: idscience and the definition of macroevolution
Hi again idscience,
Wow, yurrr shuuur hung up on the definition thing M8.
No, I am "hung up" on discussing science with the correct scientific terms and a proper understanding of them so that communication is achieved.
Now, how about giving it a shot at answering my questions on complexity being built by Darwinian means, yes, even your definition of macro-evolution.
Amusingly such explanation has nothing to do with whether or not there is evidence for macroevolution, nor is it a part of macroevolution as defined.
You appear to be confusing the theory of evolution with the process of macroevolution.
If you want to discuss how the theory of evolution explains this, then start another thread and finish this one by acknowledging that evidence of macroevolution has been provided that meets the definition provided.
If I am understanding you correctly, with the current definition of macro-evolution on the table, as long as evolutionists can cite examples of speciation, no other evidence is required to prove common descent? Can I quote you on my site?
First, no theory in science is proven. Theories can be invalidated by contrary evidence or validated by confirming evidence, but validation means that the theory can only be considered tentatively true at best.
Second common descent is just the process of offspring from parent, and it can be demonstrated by evidence to have in fact occurred. The theory of common descent would be that this process can be applied to larger groups to form a tree of life. So far the evidence for this is that it can indeed be applied to virtually all known life -- ie that it can be considered a valid theory.
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).
or you can just link to this thread and this message so that people perusing your thread can be exposed to what the science actually says.
I don't care so much about what you call it, I am interested in how it occurs? Something a little more substantial than, changes of millions of years, and a little deeper than, one fish can't seem to breed with another one.
Again, this doesn't apply to the definition for the process of macroevolution or to the provision of evidence that macroevolution occurs, which are the topic of your thread.
What you are asking is how the theory of evolution explains the diversity of life, and this is a different question from your initial post.
I could suggest you take a course in evolutionary biology at your local community college or higher, or I could suggest that you read through all the pages on
My purpose was to give evolution a fair shake on my site with the best evidence it has to offer. I was hoping I could have got that here, but it seems like your more interested in slagging ID, that sharing specific reasons why you believe what you believe.
Really? Colour me sceptical! I'm still waiting for that definition of the ToE - remember - two sentences - can't be hard and won't take you long. But what it will do is reveal the fact that you know sod all about evolution - so how can you give a 'fair shake' to something that you don't (and won't) make an effort to understand.
As far as slagging ID off - well it's a non-starter isn't it? ID is just not science. To qualify as 'doing science' there has to be a model - that makes predications and can be falsifiable - that is the essence of what science is. The ToE makes several predications (can you name any of them) and is completely falsifiable (though despite more than 250,000 experiments/observations over the past 150 years it has never yet been falsified - so it's on pretty safe ground).
ID has no model (unless you care to provide one) therefore can make NO predications and is therefore not falsifiable. A theory that is not falsifiable is NFG!
Imagine I tell you that I've just designed a spaceship and you ask me its specifications. What can it do? ...and I smile at you and say "whatever you want - this beauty can do everything you can think of". You then look impressed and say "OK let me see it" and I frown and say "Oh well you can't actually see it doing anything cos it works in secret - but honest it does work".
That's how your ID works. No moving parts to examine, no model to discuss, no way to falsify (do you know that it's more important to be able to falsify a theory than to support it. If your theory says A will always split and make B and C - then that must ALWAYS happen for your theory to hold. So that is falsifiability - if only once, A does not split to make B and C then the theory is shot apart.
Evolution is easily falsified - there are a number of predications that would blow it out of the water if it were not true....no-one's ever done it - get the picture yet?
And ID? Creationism in a clown suit - not science - no working parts - just a con job to try and get religion into science classes. Is your God so weak 'he' needs dishonest practitioners to lie in his name?
Slagging off ID? It does a perfect job of slagging itself off I'm afraid.
Now - did you want to provide your description of the ToE and macro-evolution or not?
Those of you who know who you are, could we please drop the attitude?
Please, just polite and respectful discussion and debate.
There's an announcement at the top of this thread. There are several posts from me in the thread. In case no one noticed, I already gave out a 1-day timeout to someone this morning. It's not like I'm being subtle.
I'm closing this thread for one hour now so that this message has a chance of getting across. When I reopen the thread I will be indiscriminate in issuing timeouts, and I won't be making inquiries about whether you somehow missed the warnings.
macroevolution is a process not an hypothesis - are you talking about ToE?
Hi idscience,
Because speciation as stated before, is considered (by scientists) to be macro-evolution, it does not get me to the evidence I am looking for.
Then perhaps you are not looking for evidence of macroevolution by the definitions provided but something else. If response to your question does not give you the answer you expect then it is time to review your question/s to see if what you asked was what you needed to ask.
Perhaps if you can define better what you expect to see, and why, then we can see if what you expect is based on false understanding (something that does not actually occur under evolution, such as the hopeful monster pratt), or whether it is an aspect of evolution that is explained via the theory of evolution (which you apparently confuse with macroevolution).
If you are asking how organism develop specific aspects seen in the fossil record then you are talking about the theory of evolution rather than macroevolution.
Does anyone have a pathway to develop a photoreceptor, or a flagellum motor?
Yes, but not under macroevolution. This would be under how the theory of evolution explains what we see in the world around us, in the historical record, in the fossil record, and in the genetic record.
macro is a hypothesis because it is based on assumption that similarity = common ancestry. It stands on assertion, not facts.
Sadly, for you, this opinion has already been shown to be false. It is a process and a the occurrence of macroevolution is an observed and documented fact.
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.
bold added -- it's a process not an hypothesis. The definition allows different aspects of evolution to be classified as macroevolution or not.
Again, it looks like what you need to ask about is the theory of evolution:
The Theory of Evolution (ToE), stated in simple terms, is that the process of (micro) evolution, and the process of (divergent) speciation, are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the fossil record, from the genetic record, from the historic record, and from everyday record of the life we observe in the world all around us.
So when you are looking for an explanation of how x could have evolved you are asking about the theory of evolution. Whether x is classified as microevolution or macroevolution is irrelevant.
You spend a lot of time asking me for defintions and explanations while providing non.
Message 29: For instance, I'll define microevolution (seeing as you agree completely with this process):
Microevolution is the change in the frequency distribution and composition of hereditary traits within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities.
quote:Not all characters are homologies. For example, birds and bats both have wings, while mice and crocodiles do not. Does that mean that birds and bats are more closely related to one another than to mice and crocodiles? No. When we examine bird wings and bat wings closely, we see that there are some major differences.
Bat wings consist of flaps of skin stretched between the bones of the fingers and arm. Bird wings consist of feathers extending all along the arm. These structural dissimilarities suggest that bird wings and bat wings were not inherited from a common ancestor with wings. This idea is illustrated by the phylogeny below, which is based on a large number of other characters.
Note that there is nothing similar in the use of the finger bones, their length or position. In the bird wing several of the finger bones are bunched together, shortened or fused to make the end of the wing stronger, while all the fingers are spread out and extended in length in the bat wing.
That is not the same design, it is not common design.
My point ... is, a birds wing and a lizards leg, are not similar ...
And yet they still have similar bones in the same order from pelvis to toe, the differences are derived traits that have evolved since the time of their shared common ancestor that gave them the pattern of bones.
and if macro does not have to produce novel structures....????
Curiously, macroevolution, microevolution or evolution in general do not have to produce anything. Macroevolution is a process that involves speciation, the formation of new species, the development of nested hierarchies and an increase in diversity.
Evolution is a response mechanism.
... produce novel structures....????
What's a novel structure? Is a webbed foot a novel structure? We see instances of mutations all the time where toes are webbed in offspring while their parents do not have webbed toes. Is that what a novel structure is?
You spend a lot of time asking me for defintions ...
That's because I need to understand what you mean. For example, you could not define macroevolution and you still can't explain what you think it means except that the definition used in science does not give you the answers you want.
I'll take that as a no, you do not have a usable definition for "information" that would allow one to measure it and see whether or not it increased.
This is of no concern to me nor to biology in general or evolution in particular, as this term is not used in this science. We get along fine without it.
Uhm yes. Why? Are you saying mutations do not alter the genome?
When I posted here, you guys were all over me about citing sources. With all the jibber jabber that has gone on since, only one dude has offered a paper for me to look at.
Actually, two guys have. Coyote has provided you with a whole list of papers, which you said you would read, and Crashfrog provided you with a very specific example.
Since there are a hundred of you shooting from the hip and only one of me, I am only going to respond to relevant replies with sources to back up any rebuts. I can't spend the day here.
There aren't "hundreds", but sure if you feel overwhelmed, I will step out, and this will be my last post to you.
My purpose was to give evolution a fair shake on my site with the best evidence it has to offer. I was hoping I could have got that here, but it seems like your more interested in slagging ID, that sharing specific reasons why you believe what you believe.
If you want the best evidence for macro evolution, all you had to do was go to google scholar and type in "macro evolution" in the search box.
It cites that the Darwinian model is still the only model of evolution ever proposed which invokes well-understood physical and natural processes as the causal agencies of evolutionary change.
The difference between Darwin and Mendel was the basis of heridity; Mendel had it right but Darwin had it wrong.
The difference between Darwin and Mendel was the basis of heridity; Mendel had it right but Darwin had it wrong.
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?
Here is a source from your source which I don't agree with
A review of Michael Denton's book?
quote: Conclusion (updated: 29 July 2005) Michael Denton often is called a creationist. The title of the first Chapter of his book is: "Genesis Rejected", but the chapter contains a historical account, not a defence of Genesis. It is true that Denton accepts Paley's argument from design. This is a philosophical argument for the existence of a supernatural designer. But it is also a 'natural theology' in the tradition of Paley. Since Denton rejects (macro)evolution and his own Typological Model does not explain the origin of species, he needs an answer. Paley has given him the answer. This is a nonscientific answer because both philosphy and natural theology are outside the natural sciences. With hindsight, Michael Denton could be called the first 'Intelligent Design Theorist' (5). Denton must be aware that Paley's answer is outside sience, because: "Undoubtedly, one of the major factors which contribute to the immense appeal of the Darwinian framework is that, with all its deficiencies, the Darwinian model is still the only model of evolution ever proposed which invokes well-understood physical and natural processes as the causal agencies of evolutionary change."
So he says that Denton is a neo-Paleyist that rejects macroevolution and that evolution is based on natural processes. Big Whap. So why do you disagree with it?
It cites that the Darwinian model is still the only model of evolution ever proposed which invokes well-understood physical and natural processes as the causal agencies of evolutionary change.
And?
Curiously, that is what science in general does, including physics, chemistry, astronomy and geology for starters. If you have trouble with science taking an agnostic position, then you should talk to one of the people on the clergy project list.
The difference between Darwin and Mendel was the basis of heridity; Mendel had it right but Darwin had it wrong
Not really: Mendel had no clue about natural selection or mutations. What he did was isolate dominant and recessive hereditary traits, not the genes responsible for them. He had instances where this experiments did not work out quite right and he ignored these anomalies ... caused by mutations. His work was important because nobody had done this isolation of dominant\recessive heredity before and his ignorance of genes and mutations was universal at the time. He started science on the path to finding genes.
Darwin noted that natural selection operating on the observed variation in species was sufficient to explain the origin of species.
Interestingly, the modern theory of evolution incorporates Darwin's natural selection with Mendel's hereditary traits and several other processes.
As I've said previously on this thread (getting back to the topic):
Going further:
(3) The Theory of Evolution (ToE), stated in simple terms, is that the process of Microevolution, and the process of Divergent Speciation, are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the fossil record, from the genetic record, from the historic record, and from everyday record of the life we observe in the world all around us.
Note that Phyletic Speciation is included under (extended) Microevolution, and that this combined with Divergent Speciation means that the process of Macroevolution is included in the theory.
Alternatively, we can drop the distinctions on evolution and speciation and simply say:
(4) The Theory of Evolution (ToE), stated in simple terms, is that the process of Evolution, and the process of Speciation, are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the fossil record, from the genetic record, from the historic record, and from everyday record of the life we observe in the world all around us.
This theory is tested by experiments and field observations carried out as part of the science of evolution.
Macroevolution is a process that is defined as a distinction from microevolution, to apply to different aspects of what is seen in the objective evidence we have, specifically when we look outside what occurs within a breeding population at what causes diversity.
Like any theory, the job of the ToE is to explain the evidence in manner which invokes well-understood physical and natural processes as the causal agencies. It does this.
Thus if you look at the fossil record and see X and you want to understand how X came to be, your don't ask microevolution or macroevolution to explain it, you ask the ToE to explain it, using the known processes involved in microevolution and macroevolution.
How does an eye form? How does a fin form? ask ToE.
™ Version 4.2
