|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Macro and Micro Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5215 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Hi Ned,
You asked for a definition of both micro & macro evolution. Messenjah said micro=speciation. Clearly it is possible for evolution to occur on the micro scale without speciation, rendering speciation an inadequate definition for microevolution. As an aside, macroevolution can be defined as, "the sum of those processes that explain the character-state transitions that diagnose evolutionary differences of major taxonomic rank" (Levinton 1983). I agree witrh Levinton when he says that defining macroevolution as "change above the species level" is insufficient. It leads the unwary to ideas of saltationism, & also confuses the unwary into thinking one (above species level) taxa gives rise to another by spawning a new one via "genusiation", "classiation", or "phyligiation", etc. When in fact a species gives rise to another via speciation that is different enough to warrant a new taxonomic rank. Mark ------------------"The primary purpose of a liberal education is to make one's mind a pleasant place in which to spend one's time" - Thomas Henry Huxley
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5215 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Sonic,
So if there are 25-45 intermediates for skin color from brown to white, then their should be the same for the fossil record concering fossils, that was the idea, I really don't know how you can come to any other conclusion. The conclusion can be reached because the fossil record is incomplete. In your example of a series with 45 intermediates we may see 0+ transitionals. So if we see stage 3, 15, 40, & 45, we can piece together a lineage based upon those snapshots, we simply aren’t going to see every character gradually evolving (although sometimes we get lucky). The evidence that the fossil record is incomplete is based on the fact that we regularly find new fossil taxa. If we find new fossils, then it’s not complete, is it? In my view the best evidence of evolution in the fossil record is based upon the high congruence between cladistics & stratigraphy. http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/publs/Benton/1999SystBiol.pdf
quote: Benton et al. discovered that 75% + (averaged) of cladogram nodes were congruent with the fossil record & it’s stratigraphic position (based on 300+ cladograms. There are now over a thousand in the database & it looks very rosy indeed for evolutionary theory). If evolution hadn’t occurred then almost none of them would.
I really don't know how you can come to any other conclusion. Well, the null hypothesis for cladograms matching stratigraphy is that it does so with a correlation near to zero. That the average cladogram matches to the tune of 75% + blows away the null hypothesis, & the alternative is evolution. Evolution has been shown to have occurred in the fossil record, since other tests match it so well. So, like you say, I really don't know how you can come to any other conclusion that evolution occurred, based on the fossil record.
What the fossil record dictates is not any evidence what-so-ever that macroevolution has occured. What the fossil record does is, it allows room for imagination to come to play, and such theories as the TOE to be found theoretical but nothing more. Cladistics provides an objective test to determine phylogeny. That it broadly matches not only other cladograms, but the fossil record as well, is not "imagination". It is objective, hard evidence that evolution occurred. Mark [This message has been edited by mark24, 11-23-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5215 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Sonic,
I thought about using my imagination to fill in the gaps that the fossil record does not dictate and I would be lieing to my self if I accepted macro-evolution, and I cannot do that. Then please respond to post 116. The beauty of cladistic analyses is that they use what we do have, & don't hide behind what we don't. As is clear from the correlation between cladograms & stratigraphy, evolution, & yes, that means macroevolution, did indeed occur. Pretty much any evolution of familial level & above requires macroevolution. And it is as supported as microevolution in the fossil record. No act of denial is required, no imagination is required. You have been presented with solid evidence of evolution. Please feel free to interpret the 0.75 average correlation a different way rather than with evolution. But since it was phylogeny itself that was being tested, I think you may have trouble. In fact, I'd go so far as to say you couldn't interpret the results any differently without "lying to yourself", or using your "imagination". Thanks, Mark ------------------"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5215 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Quiz,
I can see that now, I understand that the TOE is one theory and Micro and Macro are of the same theory. I believe sonic has made a good point about the fossil record and since scientist base conclusion of evidence I would think they would see the evidence sonic has clearly pointed out. Great, maybe you can shed some light on post 116, then? Mark
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5215 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Quiz,
Are you saying that your best evidence of evolution in the fossil record is based upon the high "agreement" between the "order" of the findings and the "timetable"? So in other words when they find a fossil then date it, it fits in order in-between other fossils? No. A phylogeny is an inferred evolutionary tree based on character data. If evolution didn't occur, they wouldn't match at all. They do. It has nothing to do with dates, just relative positioning stratigraphically. The phylogeny is not inferred with any knowledge of where the fossils are from, stratigraphically speaking. But by an amazing coincidence there is a correlation that is far and away beyond anything expected by chance. Why? Mark ------------------"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5215 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Sonic,
Yes, That is what he is saying. The problem is the dating techniques No, that is NOT what I'm saying. Before radiometric dating came along geologists had the world ordered old to young stratigraphically. It is the relative position, not an absolutely dated position that matters. Even so, that's an incredible correlation between stratigraphy & phylogeny that "just happened", wouldn't you say?
and even if the dating techniques were accurate and correct this does not support the idea of macroevolution even if it removes the idea that everything was created at the same point in time. Why? Please explain why phylogeny & stratigraphy match so well. It really doesn't what denial you attempt. Phylogeny & stratigraphy show an incredible correlation. It is a FACT. An incredibly unlikely FACT if evolution weren't true. In the same way that getting just two 10 taxa phylogenies to match represents odds of 43,000,000 : 1, getting an average 0.75+ correlation across 300+ cladograms represents evidence of evolution that is vastly unlikely if mere chance ordering was involved. Mark
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5215 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Sonic,
I gave the cite & relevant quote in post 116. Mark
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5215 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Ned,
Why don't you ask Sonic to name every man on the male lineage from him to Adam & Eve. He's big on having every stage, right? Mark
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5215 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Hi Sonic,
Man this threads moving fast!
You people would not have won this conversation if it were not for mark, he is the only person which has applied my logic and found something which may dictate macroevolution. It's not just the matching of stratigraphy & phylogeny that presents such good evidence of evolution, it's that phylogenies using different character sets match so well to other phylogenies. As I pointed out in an earlier post, in a large phylogeny the number of possible trees explodes. This is one of the reasons why phylogenetic analyses hasn't achieved it's true potential yet. Computers still aren't fast enough to do the numbers grind for really large numbers of taxa. There are over 43,000,000 possible trees for a 10 taxa phylogeny. Meaning getting two by chance the same is 43 million : 1. Three phylogenies? Well, it has at least 8 zeroes in it! (1,849,000,000,000,000:1) Now, they always disagree in details, but the core signals are nearly always the same, so even if the agreement drops to 50% evolution isn't in any trouble. It is still incredibly unlikely that two phylogenies would even remotely resemble each other. For example, it doesn't seem to matter what data you take, mammals seem to be related to reptiles, as are birds, reptiles are related to basal tetrapods/amphibians, which in turn are related to fish. That's the core signal that always shines through. But even in the lower taxa (branching off of the above), the other clades consistently return the same or similar relationships. There are discrepancies, in some cases quite major ones. But the chance of getting such corroborating results is vanishingly small. The overall agreement is good, & if evolution were false, it has no right to be. It works a bit like this, say I produce an evidence of something, say two people witnessing a crime & saying the getaway car has the same number plate bar one letter. Say the reports claimed the plate was 123456, & the other 123457 The odds of them getting so close is 10^5 (10 possible numbers per character to the power of correct characters). That's 100,000 : 1 Chance that they got that close a corroboration by chance alone, it would have been 1,000,000 : 1 had they got it all right. But we are left having to explain why they were even close at all? Are we to reject the testimony because it wasn't 100% perfect matching? No, clearly the defence, if he is to trash the witnesses testimony on statistical grounds is now required to produce 100,000 witnesses that all say it was something else (even to each other), or at least another two that get 5 out of 6 right. In the absence of such counter evidence, & given it's 100,000 : 1, we can be pretty confident that the first 5 characters in the sequence are 12345. The same goes for the overall phylogenetic signal provided by cladistics alone, let alone corroborating it with stratigraphy. Mark ------------------"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall [This message has been edited by mark24, 11-23-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5215 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Thank you, Admin.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5215 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Hi Sonic,
Firstly, kudos. You are the first creationist I've got to even read Benton et al.'s work. [added by edit - actually the second. It was actually a creationist that pointed the paper out to me, in some strange way he thought it supported creation!].
Congruence: Agreement,harmony. Specifically, in this case the "harmony" is the agreement between cladogram nodes (the branch points) & the order that the fossils are found in the geologic column.
Cladistics: Recreation of a geneitic tree "or" A system of Classification based off the phylogenetics Phylogenetic: The development of evolutionary organisims (i.e. macroevolution or organic evolution) Cladistics is an objective method of determining relationships between discrete entities. It produces a cladogram, which for all intents & purposes is an evolutionary tree. It is not in itself a classification system, although it can & is used as such. The cladistic classification system vs the Linnaean one. Phylogenetics is concerned with the evolutionary relationships of organisms. Phylogeny & cladogram, for the purposes of this discussion can be used interchangeably. You may see phrases like "molecular phylogenetics", or "phylogenetic analyses" bandied about, but it's still cladistical analyses. If you see the word "phylogenetic" it usually means a cladistical analyses based upon molecular characters, protein (amino acid), or DNA (nucleotide) sequences rather than morphological characters.
Stratigraphics: The study of rock strata, especially the distribution, deposition, and age of sedimentary rocks(i.e. study of fossils). Basically correct. Stratigraphics is concerned with the relative ordering of rocks. Mark ------------------"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall [This message has been edited by mark24, 11-27-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5215 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Sonic,
Speciation is allowed as long as no new abilites are formed and if new abilities are formed then it would be macro-evolution In which case macroevolution as you define it has been observed.
A frameshift mutation produces a bacteria that can digest nylon If I can pre-empt a few possible responses. AiG claims that the gene was introduced via a plasmid. The sequence was known before & after the mutation, & is the result of a single thymine addition, which is in any case is perfectly possible. Creationists usually then argue that there has been function loss, too, because the original function of the gene has been lost. This is true, but irrelevant. A forelimb turning into a wing is a macroevolutionary change, & function is both lost & gained. Macroevolution doesn't fail to have occurred because function is lost. Mark [This message has been edited by mark24, 11-27-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5215 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Sonic,
...if new abilities are formed then it would be macro-evolution Challenge met.....
No new organs equal no macro-evolution The screech of moving goalposts is a common sound here, Sonic. Mark ------------------"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5215 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Sonic,
Congruence between Cladisitcs and Stratigraphics is a good idea, but since we all know that macro-evolution is a theoretic idea and this "Cladistics" is based from a theory which is not proven, it cannot be evidence of evolution. Similarites between species is fine inside and outside of orgranic evolution, and I dont think that similarites of species presents anymore then just a common creator. Well, I made a prediction that you would seek reasons to dismiss the evidence, rather than critically examine it, & I wasn't disappointed. Basically your mental gymnastics have led you to dismiss all of science. To paraphrase your argument, you can only have evidence of X if it has been proven. If it hasn't then it's just "theoretical". Why would you need evidence of something that is already proven? Going back 500 years, most things we consider as fact today would not be anything but mere speculation. Why? Because nothing can be evidence in favour of an idea, according to you, unless it is proven first. But it can't be proven without evidence, right? It therefore follows that you accept no evidence at all, if you are being consistent, that is. A corollory of this is that you don't accept that: 1/ Gravity is associated with mass;2/ Electrons are discrete charge carrying entities; 3/ There are such things as atomic elements; 4/ Elements are mostly made up of space; 5/ The sun is made of mainly hydrogen; 6/ etc. etc. etc. All of these things began as ideas that were subsequently tested. They aren't "proven", even today. It's just that they are so well supported that to withhold consent would be considered unreasonable. According to you they cannot have been tested, it is inadmissible, any such facts that support these ideas are to be dismissed on the strenth that they are mere unproven theoretical ideas. And if we listen to you they will remain so. This is a serious, serious, serious flaw in your reasoning. Science works like this, an inductively derived hypothesis is conceived on the strength of an observation. Predictions are made, potential falsifications are stated, & as other facts come to light, they either support or refute the hypothesis. That is what evidence does, it allows us to deductively test a hypothesis. In the case of cladistics, it is true that there is an evolutionary assumption, but that is the assumption that is being tested. If something is being tested then the results will either refute the assumption, or confirm it, to whatever degree (or be non-informative either way, of course). The results show an average 0.75 correlation between cladistics & stratigraphy, strong positive evidence of evolution. This is not a trivial observation. If evolution hadn't have happened there would be near zero correlation. If a global flood happened there would be a near zero correlation. The odds of getting an average 0.75 across 300 tested cladograms by chance is staggering. Staggering. As a result, the evidence is extremely good that macroevolution occurred. It's not sciences, nor poor old deceived evolutionists fault that there's such a good correlation rather than none at all. I'm just asking you to accept that it exists. The logic is sound.
I dont think that similarites of species presents anymore then just a common creator. So when you don't agree with something, Godidit, despite the evidence? Unfortunately this is also untestable, unfalsifiable, & is therefore on the same intellectual & logical ground as fairies & unicorns. Let's be led by evidence, not speculation opposed by evidence, shall we? Interesting that you reject something supported by high quality evidence in favour of something with none. But just so you understand what you're up against, explain the correlation between stratigraphy & cladistics brought about by a common creator after the whole shithouse got mixed up by a global flood.
Too bad we dont have a GOD before us telling us what really happend. I think that would be just about the only peace of evidence that would be factual. Too bad that the entity talking to us hasn't been a priori "proven" to be a god in advance. Since because of this there is no evidence according to you that is admissible, that can be brought to support the "unproven idea" that the being is a god, right? Mark ------------------"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5215 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
PaulK,
We'll see. It'll be interesting to see how he responds to the inconsistency of rejecting the evidence cited, but accepting the rest of science that is "guilty" of the same thing. Mark
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024