ICANT writes
quote:
I do dispute that macroevolution has taken place. There is no evidence for one creature becoming a totally different creature.
I've been watching you make this same statement over and over the last couple months or so. Please realize this is a strawman. The theory of evolution never stated anywhere that a creature would ever become a totally different creature. This is a strawman created by YECs to discredit the theory.
Let me attempt to try to make you understand why this is a strawman argument.
Evolution means the change of allele frequency over time. Consider the following simple example to understand what this statement means.
We have a population jaquar sharks. Among the population we find 20% with the A allele, 20% with the B allele, 20% with the C allele, 20% with the D allele, and 20% with the E allele. The phenotypes of A and B swim slower than the phenotypes C, D, and E. However, food is plentiful where they live so there really isn't a disadvantage for the ones who carry A and B. But lately, for whatever reason, food has become a little less plentiful and the ones carrying A and B find it harder to compete C, D, and E for food and potential mates. After a few generations of this, we find the population of jaquar sharks to be the following: 15% A, 17% B, 22% C, 20% D, and 26% E. The allele frequency has changed.
And that's what evolution is. In other words, the typical jaquar shark we now find is genetically different than the the jaquar shark we'd find 3 generations ago.
Now, suppose we fast foward in time to 47 generations later and we find out that the genotype A has completely disappeared, B is still hanging on by about 1%, C is gone, D has 34% of the population, and E is 42%. What we'd also find is that along the way there was a mutation somewhere that gave rise to a new genotype and this new genotype has taken hold of 23% of the population. The allele frequency has shifted again.
If we fast foward another 100 generations or so we'd find that the accumulated shifts in allele frequency have rendered this generation of jaquar sharks to have completely different allele frequency from the jaquar sharks so many generations ago. We might be able to find that if we somehow can take a jaquar shark back in time to 150 generations ago we might find that this jaquar shark might have trouble breeding with jaquar sharks of the past because of the accumulated differences in the various genotypes. The problem might not even be biological. The problem might be that the mating ritual has changed.
We have found genetic samples from the distant past that show just this kind of genetic isolation by the passages of time and accumulation of lots and lots of small changes in allele frequency even if the organisms of the past share the same appearance as the organisms of the present.
Please understand that what I described above is something completely different than what YOU would normally mean when you say "macroevolution". This is why people have a problem with creationists using the word "macroevolution". You guys are using it as if a shark one day decides to morph into a whale.
The theory of evolution states that if given enough time and enough accumulation of changes in allele frequency, the population could become so different from the original population hundreds of generations ago that they might not resemble each other anymore. If they continue to
evolve (please go back up to see the definition of evolution), the accumulation of thousands of small changes might eventually make this population not recognizable when compared to the population thousands of generations ago.
Here is an experiment you could do. Go out and buy a painting. Every day of the rest of your life, put a small dot somewhere on the painting. When I said small, I mean try to make the dot so small that noone would be able to notice a difference just by looking at it. Don't forget to take a picture of the painting at the beginning. We'll use that to represent our fossil. After 20 years of putting tiny little dots on the painting, do you think the painting will be the same painting anymore? You will undoubtedly find some resemblance here and there, and we find the same sorts of resemblance in today's life.
quote:
Evolution = Biological evolution. Nothing else.
No, this is wrong. Like every word in the English language, we have to use the word "evolution" in context with what the user of the word means. In academia, when a person says "blah blah blah evolution blah blah blah", he typically means biological evolution. If, however, he says "blah blah blah stellar evolution blah blah blah", then in context of the sentence he really means stellar evolution.
For example, look at the word "run". When we say "blah blah blah run blah blah blah", we typically mean the physical action of running. But when we say "blah blah blah candidates run blah blah blah", do you honestly believe people would take that to mean the candidates are literally physically running around?
ICANT, remember that thread you started? People tried to explain this context thing to you in several hundred posts. Why are we still discussing this now?
™ Version 4.2