If Evolution was proved beyond doubt...

Again, I'm only interested in this statement. What do you define as microevolution and what are some examples of microevolution without mutation?Added by edit.The reason I haven't taken you seriously is because I think your standpoint is a little silly. I'll get to that later. But first thing first. Question above.This message has been edited by GAW-Snow, 05-27-2005 05:27 PM

"Well, the first thing you need to establish is the existence of a "cycle of a range of change due to reproductive variation"."Actually, that a separate issue and not necessary to discuss the orignal point. I may have some time to look up examples in the fossil record of species changing within a range, but frankly, I am surprised you claim to not have heard of that.As far as all species, I cannot say, and neither can you, because the fossil record is incomplete, but I suspect even with homo sapiens, you see a measure of this. Cro-Magnon man, for example, was larger than man has been in the past few thousand years, but we are seeing man in the past 100 years grow in size, perhaps due to better nutrition. We saw examples of what I consider "just people" that were smaller in size prior to Cro-Magnon as well. That's one example of the range I am talking about being demonstrated over time.But this is largely a side issue as to whether micro-evolution absent mutations could account for all of life today.

Sorry Gaw, but you don't measure up. You want to debate definitions in a clear attempt to avoid the issue.Bye! Have a nice day!Oh, but I'll add this one definition of microevolution."Microevolution is the occurrence of small-scale changes in gene frequencies in a population over a few generations, also known as change at or below the species level. "Microevolution - WikipediaSince you could have taken the time to google that yourself and then commented, I see no reason to continue discussions with you.

I wasn't interested in what the dictionary said... anyone could have gotten that. I just wanted to know what YOU think evolution is.Now that we got that cleared up, you still haven't answered my question. How is evolution possible without mutation and what are some examples? Do you practice being vague? And since when did I want to debate about definition?Added by edit:On a second thought, see you again next week. I'll be married to the road the next few days.This message has been edited by GAW-Snow, 05-27-2005 05:59 PM

Make up your mind. Previously you called it part of the "real crux of the matter". I haven't. I am requesting that you back up your claim with evidence, as you agreed to when you joined the forum. And, to establish that it is the norm, you will need far more than a few examples; and you will have to address those areas where we have a good range of fossils, such as whales and hominids. That is a range of variation, but that's no reason for concluding that we are limited to that range. I may have missed it .. but who claims that microevolution absent mutations could account for all of life today? Certainly no biologists do. Microevolution is largely mutations.

Jon, you are being absurd."I may have missed it .. but who claims that microevolution absent mutations could account for all of life today? Certainly no biologists do."Uh, duh!! My point exactly. Reread what I wrote.You admit that microevolution absent of mutations cannot account for all of life today, right?Please answer.And yet microevolution does occur without mutations. Heck, if you have a baby without the baby having a mutation, microevolution has occurred, OK?So arguing that just because microevolution occurs, as the other poster did, that is 100% proof of macroevolution is quite absurd.Lemme ask you this to illustrate what I was responding to. What would stop normal reproduction from evolving into anything, period, over time, absent of mutations?What would stop it?Hmm...are mutations necessary or not?The truth is that the fact of microevolution on its own does not prove macroevolution. That's just flat out wrong.If you want to claim microevolution of a certain type that included mutations leads to macroevolution, then fine.But then the crux of the matter is mutations, not by the way the tendency towards a range of change, which I used as something seen in the fossil record, and gave homo sapiens as an example, which is proof enough to illustrate a side point which was made as an illustration itself.But the way this thread has gone is one evidence to me of the near futility to talking with evolutionists. It's like there is veil on the brain, something I have only seen by and large with people in cults (not trying to be mean here or say it's a cult but just my observation). There really was no reason to waste several pages trying to refute a very small observation of mine, which is that if microevolution as an idea automatically proved macroevolution, then all forms of microevolution would do that, and they do not.But there was this blanket refusal to admit the obvious, and instead an attempt to somehow find a way to condemn what could not be condemned, all because a "sacred" argument of evolutionists was denied.Bottom line is I responded to this thread concerning why, imo, proving common descent totally would not disprove special creation.anyone care to return to the thread topic?This message has been edited by randman, 05-27-2005 06:11 PMThis message has been edited by randman, 05-27-2005 07:14 PM

Seems pretty unlikely that it could. Well, I don't think that the existence of microevolution proves the existence of macroevolution. The evidence we have, including but not limited to the existence of microevolution, establishes beyond any reasonable doubt that macroevolution has happened. I agree. Nothing can disprove special creation. That's one reason why creationism isn't a scientific theory. (I don't mean to deprecate belief in special creation; it just ain't science).

If you examine a particular strand of a species showing microevolution, it is true that not all of these strands will lead to a new species. Some will die out due to changing conditions in the environment.But that is not the point. The point is that the very fact that species change logically tells us that species can change indefinitely.But keep in mind that our definition of "species" is a merely classificational matter. In the past, I suspect that species were divided according to physical characteristics. But then knowledge about genes came along, and we decided that perhaps it would be more useful to name species according to isolated gene pools. However, there are exceptions. Now in science, an "exception" will not do. If there is an exception to the rule, then there is something wrong with the rule.This is the problem that you would expect with evolution. When there are all these life forms changing constantly, then it will be difficult to say where this organism we have labelled as one species ends and the other thing that we have labelled as another species begins.All changes in a species is a "microevolution." But it is inevitable that some of these organisms will continue to change and result eventually in what we call, for convenience's sake, a new species.We might have another classificational system. We might have said, for example, that all red animals are in the same family. So we have red worms and red lobsters in the same family. But we look at the two and think, well, they are very different, so let's try another classificational system.So it's not like these classifications are the same sort of thing as the classifications of elements, for example.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 05-27-2005 06:54 PMThis message has been edited by robinrohan, 05-27-2005 06:57 PM

"Well, I don't think that the existence of microevolution proves the existence of macroevolution."That was my point."The evidence we have, including but not limited to the existence of microevolution, establishes beyond any reasonable doubt that macroevolution has happened."Saying it doesn't make it so."Nothing can disprove special creation. That's one reason why creationism isn't a scientific theory."But people argue all the time that special creation and things like YEC have been disproven by scientific research. You cannot have it both ways. Either science can disprove it or not, and if it can, it's science, and if not, we can debate that.Personally, I think of "evolution" in a similar vein. It cannot be proven or disproven, but that doesn't stop some from declaring it is proven beyond even all "reasonable doubt".But let me rephrase the larger point. Th thread title asks if evolution were proven true, and by evolution I assume that means the theory of common descent, then what would be the consequences as far as biblical belief, and I posted here to state that the concept of either/or, and even heck, one time-line, is not valid.

"The point is that the very fact that species change logically tells us that species can change indefinitely."Maybe they can change indefinitely, but that doesn't mean they are capable of infinite change, which was your original point.That's why I used the deck of cards example. If I were to shuffle a deck of cards forever, it is true that the deck order would forever change, but would not have an infinite range of change.The idea that a very long, even forever, length of time equates with infinite range of change is just wrong on the face of it, and an incorrect and illogical leap.Microevolution can occur in a manner, conveivably, that does not lead to macroevolution provided no mutations occur. So the idea that just because species are changing due to reproduction means it is logical they could evolve into just about anything given enough time is illogical. The nature of the change is not such that it is unlimited, absent mutations, and that was my point, and why I consider the old argument that demands "what's stopping it?" to be a serious error in logic and thinking.

Why? Why?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

jar, read the thread. The point was conceded that mutations were necessary to explain the evolution of all of life.Take away the mutations, and you don't have sufficient enough mechanism to accomplish this.It's not even debatable really.Are you claiming that mutations are not necessary for macroevolution?

True. And responding what you did doesn't make it not so. What does make it so is the actual evidence and analyses that have been accumulated, tested, re-tested, and confirmed over many years. What could, but has not yet, make it false would be any of a large number of things … such as identification of a barrier between species or a limitation that prevents evolution from producing the variety we see. Not one or two examples, but establishment of an across-the board barrier to changes that can be produced by the mechanism of mutation (and other diversity generators) and natural selection. A lot of people assert a lot of things, but "scientific creationism" and ID boil down to but hot air (so far).We know that evolution cannot produce things that are physically impossible, and it can't produce things that are totally different from the immediately preceding things ... and that's exactly what we see. OTOH, special creation could produce anything, including things we are sure are physically impossible. I don't want it both ways; special creation, YEC, and ID are not science and cannot be disproved within the scientific arena. Heck, I can't think of any way to disprove them in any arena. You want to complain about people wanting to have it both ways, find some of those people and complain to them. To pick one of a multitude of examples, a modern rabbit skeleton in pre-Cambrian strata, with the fossil's provenance traced by professional scientists, and stratigraphy and multiple radiometric dating methods confirming the age, and nobody seeing any way it could be faked, would disprove the theory of evolution. The fact that evolution has taken place is data, not something that can be proven or disproven.Almost all of those who are knowledgable about the field accept macroevolution. Almost all of those who deny macroevolution are demonstrably ignorant of the field, and even more of those who deny macroevolution obviously (and sometimes explicitly) do so because of non-scientific and non-falsifiable presuppositions. I don't say you should accept macroevolution becasue so many biologists do; but you should admit that it's established beyond reasonable doubt in science. You want to change that, you're going to have to play it the scientific way.What do your think would falsify special creation? I'm not asking for anything that necessarily exists. Just something that you would accept as a falsification of special cration. If there's no such thing, you're not doing science. I somewhat agree with you. But if common descent were proven beyond a creationist's unreasonable shadow of a doubt, any "science" based on a literal interpretation of Genesis would be falsified. Of course, one would still be free to believe as one wishes … one just couldn't claim scientific justification for that belief. That includes ID as it's currently formulated.

I have and frankly, it seems to be wandering into mirky waters.Mutations happen. They happen continuously.The physical similarities between species was noticed many hundreds of years ago.Genetic discoveries have independently confirmed what was seen physically.We now are very close to absolutely positive that everything is related.We are very close to 100% positive that humans and the Apes are so closely related that it's likely we should all be in one classification.In science we never get to 100% proof levels but Evolution and the TOE are certainly as close as we have gotten with any theory.So what is the question?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I think this is possibly one cause of intrinsic human 'dissatisfaction' with the theory of evolution. Evolution is a highly contingent process and would never play out the same way twice, making exact predictions very tenuous in comparison to the physical sciences.At the same time, valid methods of inference are well developed to infer *retrospectively* exactly what did happen in evolutionary history, but these inferences are mistrusted by the uneducated in the absence of some evidence of 'precise' predictability.