Microevolution & Macroevolution

[DeletedUser]

I.e., he and Willy would prefer to argue from a podium of ignorance instead of becoming informed, educated on evolutionary facts and theories.

Don't lump me together with Sum on that one, I am very well educated on that subject as well as others.

As far as your evidence is concerned,

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v14/n1/fossil

there are conflicting ideas on that front, not really proof as you would have others believe.

I followed up that link, and I'm sorry to say that it's scientifically illiterate.
The very first sentences say:-

"The reality of the geologic column is predicated on the belief that fossils have restricted ranges in rock strata. In actuality, as more and more fossils are found, the ranges of fossils keep increasing."

Well of course, as you get more datapoints the total range increases. Only if the first 2 are the most extreme you will ever observe will this not be the case. Why take a truism and present it as a counter-argument? I forced myself to read on but it did not get much better. Just as one example, this guy seems to think that Noah's flood arranged all the fossils in their observed order without even attempting any explanation of how or why turbulent water flow could sift them into their correct evolutionary order. It's pure voodoo "science".
​

 

[DeletedUser]

Species is a group of animals or organisms similar in basic appearance that can interbreed.

This similar in appearance is somewhat important as not all classes of taxa are created equally or interbreed.

What about the living forms that don't interbreed due to lack of genders and sexuality? In fact those constitute the vast majority of life on this planet even. That definition is absolutely useless for them...


And what about the cases of ring species?
Think of three populations A, B, C.
A and B can interbreed.
B and C can interbreed.
A and C can't interbreed.

Is B a super species then? Being two species at once according to your definition?

 

[DeletedUser]

What about the living forms that don't interbreed due to lack of genders and sexuality? In fact those constitute the vast majority of life on this planet even. That definition is absolutely useless for them...


And what about the cases of ring species?
Think of three populations A, B, C.
A and B can interbreed.
B and C can interbreed.
A and C can't interbreed.

Is B a super species then? Being two species at once according to your definition?

Fair points, but "species" is not a hard-edged term. Nature gradates between life-forms and it's only people with a religious dogma to adhere to who wish to make hard-and-fast divisions.
Bacteria for example, just evolve asexually into new and different strains. I suppose when a strain becomes so different from its bacterial paradigm it is given a new species name, but that is just a handle for human observers and represents nothing fundamental in nature.
Your second point is borne out by some paleo-arctic birds (I'm a bird-watcher in my spare time). Say a parent population of gulls originate in Norway and spread from there, some going west to Iceland, some east to Siberia. Over the years the divergent populations mutate slightly as their range increases and eventually, when they meet at the far side of the globe - in Alaska for example they can no longer interbreed. Yet until then each population could breed with both its neighbours to east and west. Just an example of how many small steps lead eventually to new species. If you think about it the whole tree of life is like that - each generation could interbreed with its parents and offspring, but after thousands of generations if one member could meet its great,great,great.............etc. grandchild they would not be able to.

 

[DeletedUser]

Say a parent population of gulls originate in Norway and spread from there, some going west to Iceland, some east to Siberia. Over the years the divergent populations mutate slightly as their range increases and eventually, when they meet at the far side of the globe - in Alaska for example they can no longer interbreed. Yet until then each population could breed with both its neighbours to east and west. Just an example of how many small steps lead eventually to new species. If you think about it the whole tree of life is like that - each generation could interbreed with its parents and offspring, but after thousands of generations if one member could meet its great,great,great.............etc. grandchild they would not be able to.

That would be defiantly strong evidence for evolution if that is how it worked; however there is no such evidence to support that claim. People from Africa, Asia, Europe, and the Americas can all interbreed for instance, even though they have adapted to different climates over centuries.

 

[DeletedUser]

In this case it is not the universal attribution, but the instances, which affirm as evidence. As well, attempting to utilize humans in your argument fails in that natural evolution with humans is inherently far slower than other species (due to our lifespans), the sample elements have been periodically interbreeding over the span of the testable timeframe, the testable timeframe for homo sapiens sapiens is simply too short (less than 100,000 years of time interrupted by instances of interbreeding, when it is estimated that ~2 million years of isolated evolution would be needed for Man to produce new species), and finally there is evidence that divergent Man (other species) did exist in co-habitation ages ago.

Homo sapiens sapiens is one species with differing pigmentations and miniscule physical characteristics as the result of divergent evolution. It does not consist of differing species, just one species that has done a helluva lot of traveling.

Anyway, the core argument is flawed in this latest string, in that species are not defined by whether they can or cannot interbreed. Many species exist that are capable of interbreeding and producing viable offspring, but simply do not interbreed. So this particular argument will have to be reframed.

 

[DeletedUser]

That would be defiantly strong evidence for evolution if that is how it worked;

Good, because that is exactly what happens with some palearctic bird populations.

HS has dealt with your point re: homo sapiens. Just because geographical separation can lead to speciation over time, it doesn't mean that it must almost immediately. That would be silly.

Your point about species definition HS is obfuscating. Ofc the practical application of the label "species" is pragmatic. If black and white people never interbred for cultural reasons, that would not make them separate species, but two differently plumaged ducks that could but in practice never did, interbreed would probably be given different species names. Nomenclature is all about convenience. However, not being able to interbreed is the strongest definition of "species" and therefore the best one to use in an argument with speciation-deniers because if it can be established that non-interfertile populations can arise as a result of evolution by natural selection then the argument is over. There's no quibble-room over semantics there.

 

[DeletedUser]

Indeed, but there is quibble-room over semantics when it is demonstrated there are differing species that "can" interbreed.

 

[DeletedUser17649]

Well that's because species is a term created by humans and therefore not perfect.

 

[DeletedUser]

wait... i was created by humans and i'm perfect. Doesn't that invalidate your assertion?

 

[DeletedUser17649]

It might have if I believed you, but I know I'm perfect and the chance of there being two perfect beings is rather small hence, you're most likely lying.

 

[DeletedUser]

Ah, but you were created by humans as well. So, whichever is perfect, your assertion is still invalidated.

 

[DeletedUser17649]

I never said I was. Besides, I'm not a classification system ^^,

 

[DeletedUser563]

Looking at the original post by HS referring Willypete I think Willy's problem is a matter of interpretation. Both viewpoints : scientific and archaeological ,anthropological data on the one hand and biblical passages is compatible. Therefore if one interpret the bible correctly man could have been here for thousand of years. Therefore theories like microevolution is not needed to win this argument as remember the bible was mostly interpreted and recorded by a technologically less advanced people than ourselves. A concept like 1 million would likely not have existed in their field of knowledge.

Although it might be therefore argued that the bible covers a certain limited time it has been said that for example day 1 might have been several thousands of years . Or did you want the story of the whole of creation in minute detail. The concepts of time was introduced at a later stage. Therefore when the bible refers to in day 1 this was created there is alot of factors contributing to that one fact. Or should they have said OK dont try to understand just right down in millenia 1 . You were dealing with their concepts of time and the book was obviously not 100% factual it is up to interpretation. It was written to be understandable to that ancient civilization. For instance if God provided us with an update today he would for example say but when i refer to day I refer to some many thousands of years . That is because our field of knowledge has increased from the writing of the bible up to now and we could understand it. Therefore a lot of the bible is interpretation and need not be argued like a factual handbook. .

 

[DeletedUser]

Stay on topic Jakkals. This is about evolution, not religion.

 

[DeletedUser563]

well the thread from which HS quoted was a discussion on microevolution in relation to religion discussing the broader topic of sexuality. Hence my post is not off topic. You cant quote snippets out of context and claim later that a person discussing it in the original context is off topic. Anyway I can discuss from any vantage point I like . Your not the boss of me Eli . And in that thread sexuality was discussed from the point of view of religion by WillyPete throughout. Anyway your not a mod and I have a few credits still. Anyway if you wanted a clean discussion , start it off cleanly. From all your post I see most of you are not very organized and not in careers were it matter whether your very clear in your communications. But if you want to keep a discussion on a clean basis only discussing a topic do not quote from other posts that is clearly discussing other topics under the overriding topic of religion or coming from the vantage point of religion. I anyway think HS who is the only person that is knowledgeable on the subject said what needed to be said and this topic has fallen into the realm of oneliners and such. And posters worrying about the rules.

Victor can you please close this topic therefore. Thanks mate.

PS as your not a moderator your post is off topic according to the rules eli. If you feel that another poster is off topic add a comment or telegram me or report me if you want to be a ..... else your also off topic.

 

[DeletedUser]

Jakkals, your assertion was firmly debunked in this thread --- http://forum.the-west.net/showthread.php?t=50358 and yes, it is off-topic. The topic is microevolution & macroevolution, which pertains to intra- and inter- species evolution. If you wish to debate the Bible's interpretation of time, try the other thread, thanks.

Now, last we were at, we were dealing with Sumdumass wanting to redefine the term "species" because he had been firmly pwned on the issue of the 500+ sources provided asserting macroevolution and figured if he moved the goalposts, he would be able to wriggle some disputation out of it. But, ultimately, species is a scientific definition, not a personal one. Sum's attempt to move the goalposts is a shallow attempt to win an argument, and not an attempt to discuss facts or evidence.

So then, what else is there to debate re: micro/macro-evolution?

 

[WanderingStranger]

The term Macroevolution was created in 1927. At the time the person who made it defined his new terminology (term). He created and gave examples of what the term was for.

Saying it doesnt exits would be like saying Dr Pepper doesnt exist. It was the name used to refer to a drink made Charles Alderton.

It is a Term not a Theory.

Term (language) or terminology-a noun or compound word used in a specific context.

There we go. Flawless logic. We are now all nice nice nice happy happy happy.

 

[DeletedUser]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to WanderingStranger again.

Just because you made me chuckle.

 

[DeletedUser]

Good, because that is exactly what happens with some palearctic bird populations.

Any examples of actual studies of actual divergent species that actually separated to a point where they can no longer interbreed, or is that just speculation?

Your point about species definition HS is obfuscating. Ofc the practical application of the label "species" is pragmatic. If black and white people never interbred for cultural reasons, that would not make them separate species, but two differently plumaged ducks that could but in practice never did, interbreed would probably be given different species names. Nomenclature is all about convenience. However, not being able to interbreed is the strongest definition of "species" and therefore the best one to use in an argument with speciation-deniers because if it can be established that non-interfertile populations can arise as a result of evolution by natural selection then the argument is over. There's no quibble-room over semantics there.

As far as the term species goes, of course it is pragmatic; it is a term humans came up with to create a model of what they see in nature to better understand it; however any model is only as good as the information that it is built on, and unfortunately that information is very limited.

Science is based on money. So results are often money biased. If there are lots of grants given out to prove evolution, then the results are going to be evolution biased.

 

[DeletedUser]

Any examples of actual studies of actual divergent species that actually separated to a point where they can no longer interbreed, or is that just speculation?

Is that list satisfying enough?
http://evolutionlist.blogspot.de/2009/02/macroevolution-examples-and-evidence.html

Science is based on money. So results are often money biased. If there are lots of grants given out to prove evolution, then the results are going to be evolution biased.

Right...Of course, disproving evolution would make you a poor person, you'd never be mentioned in any science book, nor any history book, because scientists, who caused paradigm shifts are despised and scorned and their work is shunned and hidden from the general public by evil egomaniac money biased scientists.

Dude, you're gonna be the richest most famous living person on this planet (as far as science goes, that is. Rock stars and Hollywood will still own you). But at least you'd make Hawking look like a little insignificant school-boy.


Also I advice you to read a scientific paper, especially the last bits, that explain possible mistakes and misinterpretations that could have occured during the experiment. Now also you should realize what peer-revew is and then you will come to the conclusion that "biased science" due to money or whatever is an oxymoron.