Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "Microevolution" vs. "macroevolution."
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 16 of 63 (300607)
04-03-2006 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Faith
04-03-2006 1:11 PM


Re: It's all a definitional sleight of hand
Hi Faith,
I again don't want to take this thread off-topic, but I do want to nip any misunderstandings in the bud.
Faith writes:
And since Percy is on my case for taking Wounded's bait about proof (which is what the challenge to define the Kinds is about)...
Wounded King never said anything about proof. He was only noting the inconsistency of making explicit claims about something that doesn't have a clear definition. It was you who first mentioned proof in the message Wounded King replied to, Message 7:
No, we can't yet define a Kind. But macroevolution, as it is now called in order to avoid confusion, has also not been proved.
And then you mentioned proof again in your reply to Wounded King in Message 10, which is where I stepped in to note that it was off-topic.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Faith, posted 04-03-2006 1:11 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Faith, posted 04-03-2006 1:42 PM Percy has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 17 of 63 (300609)
04-03-2006 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Percy
04-03-2006 1:18 PM


Re: It's all a definitional sleight of hand
The only other actual evidence suggested by Darwin's chapter headings is the fossil record. All the rest must ultimately refer back to natural selection as the mechanism of change. And getting evolution out of the gradations of fossils may look logical but it is only a wild leap to interpret them as proving descent from one of these dead forms to another.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the MECHANISMS considered to lead to macroevolution remain the various forms of selection caused by a variety of environmental circumstances, of which Natural Selection is a specific subset. Really it's just one mechanism, selection by whatever circumstances abide. This is the same mechanism anciently observed and made use of in domestic breeding, and what Darwin did was show its operation in Nature, so the fact remains that if the domestic version didn't prove macroevolution, neither does the natural version.
Actually there is not much to say about how the terms are used, is there? I think I said it myself in my first post. All that's left is the usual arguing for and against macroevolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Percy, posted 04-03-2006 1:18 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Percy, posted 04-03-2006 1:57 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 18 of 63 (300610)
04-03-2006 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Percy
04-03-2006 1:26 PM


Re: It's all a definitional sleight of hand
I understand Percy. Forgive me, but I know where that point always goes, whether Wounded used the term or not, and it goes to claiming that if we can't define Kinds we have no proof.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Percy, posted 04-03-2006 1:26 PM Percy has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 19 of 63 (300611)
04-03-2006 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by subbie
04-01-2006 9:49 PM


Creationist definitions...
Creationist definitions of macroevolution are worthless. There is never any way to test if they have been satisfied. The "evolution between kinds" definition is logically impossible give a common creationist concpet of "kind" as including all related species.
When a creationist talks about macroevolution he or she means evolution that they refuse to accept. Any definition they offer is simply window-dressing intended to "justify" their refusal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by subbie, posted 04-01-2006 9:49 PM subbie has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 20 of 63 (300612)
04-03-2006 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Chiroptera
04-03-2006 1:16 PM


Re: It's all a definitional sleight of hand
Actually, it was the opposite. Common descent was accepted almost immediately; it took a generation or two before natural selection was common accepted as the mechanism for evolution.
OK, yes, that is right, but again, all Darwin did was suggest it as a possibility as it can no more PROVE macroevolution than its counterpart domestic selection can.
And the idea of common descent was based only on the weird fact that the fossils appear to be graded in some way approximating the taxonomic tree, isn't that so?
This message has been edited by Faith, 04-03-2006 01:47 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Chiroptera, posted 04-03-2006 1:16 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Chiroptera, posted 04-03-2006 1:52 PM Faith has replied
 Message 24 by Admin, posted 04-03-2006 2:06 PM Faith has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 63 (300614)
04-03-2006 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Faith
04-03-2006 1:46 PM


Re: It's all a definitional sleight of hand
Hi, Faith. At the risk of being off-topic (alright, I know, I started it), I'll answer this question:
quote:
And the idea of common descent was based only on the weird fact that the fossils appear to be graded in some way approximating the taxonomic tree, isn't that so?
I don't think so. I think the fossil record was too incomplete at this time to make this kind of determination -- I could be wrong. All the fossil record at that time showed was that life becomes simpler as you look further down the geologic column, i.e. as you look further back in time. It's been a couple of decades since I read Origin of Species. I've read Descent of Man more recently, but the main concern in that book was sexual selection as a mechanism for evolution.

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Faith, posted 04-03-2006 1:46 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Faith, posted 04-03-2006 2:03 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 22 of 63 (300616)
04-03-2006 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Faith
04-03-2006 1:39 PM


Re: It's all a definitional sleight of hand
This is again off-topic, but I just want to jump in again to correct your misstatements.
Faith writes:
The only other actual evidence suggested by Darwin's chapter headings is the fossil record.
Since you've just read the chapter headings, I don't see how you can say this. Let me put the relevant topics in my own words to make clear that Darwin drew on much more than domestic breeding and the fossil record:
  • Change in plants and animals under domestication.
  • Change in plants and animals in the wild.
  • Instinct.
  • Hybridism.
  • The geological record (includes fossil evidence).
  • Geographical distribution.
  • Morphology.
  • Embryology.
  • Vestigial organs.
And that should settle the matter about how widely Darwin sought out evidence for evolution.
Unless you're somehow tying it in to the definitions of microevolution and macroevolution, the rest of your post about the mechanisms of evolution seems even further off-topic. Not that it isn't a great topic for discussion, it's just that it isn't this topic.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Faith, posted 04-03-2006 1:39 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Faith, posted 04-03-2006 2:20 PM Percy has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 23 of 63 (300618)
04-03-2006 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Chiroptera
04-03-2006 1:52 PM


Re: It's all a definitional sleight of hand
I have to quit here soon anyway so the offtopicking will end for me then.
I don't think so. I think the fossil record was too incomplete at this time to make this kind of determination -- I could be wrong.
But you said the idea of common descent was already more or less accepted before Darwin found a mechanism to account for it, didn't you? And I thought that idea derived from the fossil record. If not, then what did it derive from?
All the fossil record at that time showed was that life becomes simpler as you look further down the geologic column, i.e. as you look further back in time.
That's right, which is what I thought was taken for the basis of the idea of common descent. I can't think there's any other source of that idea.
It's been a couple of decades since I read Origin of Species. I've read Descent of Man more recently, but the main concern in that book was sexual selection as a mechanism for evolution.
Yes, and I lump all the forms of selection together myself, as I think they all really amount to the same thing in the end (whether domestic or natural or sexual, or even all the ways populations are split by migration or bottleneck etc, all that is really just a way of selecting out types from other types). All these mechanisms do no more than domestic selection does as far as "evolving" a species into many varieties.
But again, I thought your point was that the idea of common descent was already in place. And, apart from where that idea came from, my answer is that Darwin's mechanism of natural selection doesn't prove it in any case, any more than domestic selection does.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Chiroptera, posted 04-03-2006 1:52 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Chiroptera, posted 04-03-2006 2:25 PM Faith has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 24 of 63 (300619)
04-03-2006 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Faith
04-03-2006 1:46 PM


Re: It's all a definitional sleight of hand
Faith writes:
OK, yes, that is right, but again, all Darwin did was suggest it as a possibility as it can no more PROVE macroevolution than its counterpart domestic selection can.
This is not the topic of this thread. Search this thread and you'll see that words like "prove" and "proving" are used by no one but you, so please do not again blame others for leading you into this. The OP specifically requests this thread not be about proving macroevolution. Please honor the request. Thanks!

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Faith, posted 04-03-2006 1:46 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Faith, posted 04-03-2006 2:27 PM Admin has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 25 of 63 (300622)
04-03-2006 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Percy
04-03-2006 1:57 PM


Re: It's all a definitional sleight of hand
I was trying to say that most of those could be grouped either under selection or under the fossil record. Geographical distribution can be grouped under selection for instance. But you're right, he covered more kinds of evidence than just selection.
The ToE has always been considered to be dependent upon Natural Selection as its driving force, as what makes macroevolution possible, which was what they were all crying out for in the days of Darwin -- a mechanism by which it might be possible. So he gave them natural selection, but, and as I said, that no more proves common descent than domestic selection does. It remains a suggestion of a possibility.
Actually, hybridism couldn't prove macroevolution. Like selection we see it in breeding. Geographical distribution couldn't prove macroevolution. Ditto.
Seems to me nothing in Darwin's chapter headings could be a proof of evolution, and since the mechanism of natural selection, on which so much seemed to depend at the time, proves no more than domestic selection does, and in fact less since it's a less controlled process, I see no proof of macroevolution whatever in any of that.
This message has been edited by Faith, 04-03-2006 02:23 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Percy, posted 04-03-2006 1:57 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Percy, posted 04-03-2006 2:47 PM Faith has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 63 (300623)
04-03-2006 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Faith
04-03-2006 2:03 PM


Re: It's all a definitional sleight of hand
quote:
But you said the idea of common descent was already more or less accepted before Darwin found a mechanism to account for it, didn't you? And I thought that idea derived from the fossil record. If not, then what did it derive from?
Sorry I wasn't very clear. What I meant was that Darwin's theory of common descent was accepted by the scientific community before his theory of natural selection. Both were accepted after he published his ideas, but it took longer for natural selection to be accepted. (I can't remember, though, where I read this.)
As far as the evidence, I can't remember all the evidence for common descent that was used by Darwin; I assume that Linnaeus classification was important, and I know biogeography was also important. Looking at Percy's list of chapter titles, it appears that he was also aware of embryology and the existence of vestigial organs in various species.

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Faith, posted 04-03-2006 2:03 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 27 of 63 (300625)
04-03-2006 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Admin
04-03-2006 2:06 PM


Re: It's all a definitional sleight of hand
OK. Last post was written before seeing your admin warning.
Good luck keeping it off proof.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Admin, posted 04-03-2006 2:06 PM Admin has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 28 of 63 (300634)
04-03-2006 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Faith
04-03-2006 2:20 PM


Re: It's all a definitional sleight of hand
Faith writes:
Seems to me nothing in Darwin's chapter headings could be a proof of evolution, and since the mechanism of natural selection, on which so much seemed to depend at the time, proves no more than domestic selection does, and in fact less since it's a less controlled process, I see no proof of macroevolution whatever in any of that.
Faith, step back for a moment. I'm was not talking about proving macroevolution. I was never talking about proving macroevolution. It literally did not cross my mind when I was composing my posts about Darwin's evidence.
I posted for one reason only, to correct your misstatement that Darwin drew upon only a single line of evidence, domestic breeding. That is not true, and I listed the other lines of evidence he drew upon to show that that is not true. Whether or not the evidence he presented is sufficient to support a theory of common descent is another matter, and it isn't the topic of this thread. Even Darwin's evidence is off-topic - I only posted because I didn't want readers left with the misimpression that Darwin considered only a superficial amount of evidence.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Faith, posted 04-03-2006 2:20 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Faith, posted 04-03-2006 3:01 PM Percy has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 29 of 63 (300643)
04-03-2006 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Percy
04-03-2006 2:47 PM


Re: It's all a definitional sleight of hand
I'll have to go back over it but the idea of a single line of *evidence* was misspeaking if that's what I said. My point was that Natural Selection was supposed to be THE SINGLE MECHANISM that made evolution WORK, made it possible. Mechanism, not evidence. There may be a number of lines of evidence, such as the fossil record or vestigial organs and so on, but only this one mechanism.
And I suppose this is off topic too, but that truly is what I meant. I didn't mean to suggest just one kind of evidence for evolution and if I fell into that way of thinking I was wrong.
{ABE: OK, I went back to the original statement and here's what I said:
Nobody ever thought there could be variation beyond whatever a kind is until Darwin, and all Darwin did was suggest how it might be possible, which was nothing more than observing that the principles of domestic breeding occur haphazardly in nature.
I suppose the problem might have occurred with the phrase "all Darwin did" but I meant in relation to explaining how evolution could have occurred in nature, not in terms of the range of evidence he considered for evolution. And as I understand it his answer to HOW was Natural Selection, and my answer is that domestic selection ought to do as good or better a job of demonstrating macroevolution then, and since it doesn't Natural Selection certainly remains no more than the mere suggestion of a possibility about how macroevolution COULD have occurred.}
This message has been edited by Faith, 04-03-2006 03:05 PM
This message has been edited by Faith, 04-03-2006 03:06 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Percy, posted 04-03-2006 2:47 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Percy, posted 04-03-2006 4:16 PM Faith has replied

  
ptman
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 63 (300646)
04-03-2006 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by subbie
04-01-2006 9:49 PM


Back to the beginning
OK , I'm going to second Subbie's original question, what is the difference between microevolution and macroevolution? I see it as the definitional difference between micro and macro or the same principles expressed on different scales.
The analogy would be economics. Microeconomics is on the scale of the individual and Macroeconmics is on the scale of the group. The same patterns / models are applicable on each scale.
I would contrast this to what I think is generally called "emergent properties" where differences of scale result in observations of small scale that do not explain observations on the larger scale.
A crude example of this might be stellar fusion where the behavior of even a large quantity of Hydrogen would be explained by gas laws until a critical level is reached and then we have an entirely new behavior where the hydrogen ceases to be itself and becomes Helium.
Is there a critical limit at which Micro becomes Macro or is it just a convenience of observational terminology?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by subbie, posted 04-01-2006 9:49 PM subbie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by EZscience, posted 04-03-2006 3:31 PM ptman has replied
 Message 33 by Chiroptera, posted 04-03-2006 4:21 PM ptman has not replied
 Message 36 by Brad McFall, posted 04-04-2006 7:52 AM ptman has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024