Evolution in Action: Lizard Moves from eggs to live birth!

[Techne]

No, it's not an argument from ignorance. What made this first human "human"?

The same property that makes you and I a human.

Was it the first primate that had slightly less hair than his brothers? Was it the first primate to harness fire or was it some unique gene mutation?

I think this argument is far from being ignorant, yet rather one that asks questions without assuming something must be true.

The issue is largely a question of what it means to be human. Is it some property that is a quantity or is it a quality?

Consider the example of an empty chamber that has zero molecules of water. Now fill it with hydrogen and oxygen and allow it to react.

There is nothing controversial about the idea that there was a first molecule of water in that chamber.

This is merely an analogy and not a univocal example of what happens in biological evolution. It merely demonstrates the point that there was a first "something" if it did not exist before that period. One reason that makes the analogy insufficient is that we both agree on a clear definition of "water" and we can intellectually agree that there had to be a first water molecule.

In the case of human evolution, we may have differing views on what it means to be a human. For example, an intellectual animal (for me) captures the essence or nature of humans. Humans are intellectual animals. There were moments in the past when there were NO intellectual animals and at some point in time a first intellectual animal began to exist (Christians and other theists may refer to this first intellectual animal as "Adam"). When this happened is a matter of speculation and the same can be said of the water reaction. This does not imply that there were no first instances, it is just an epistemological issue i.e. we don't know exactly when due to ignorance. This does not change the logical and rational fact that there was a first instance.

 

[TJ99]

Totally off-topic, but I saw some F1 replays yesterday. I only watched a few seconds each time and the cars only got from standing still to about 100km/h. Micro-acceleration is totally real! I mean some crazy people out there say those cars can go to over 300km/h, but that's complete bull**** since that's macro-acceleration. I haven't seen any proof of such massive changes in speed by looking at the first 3 seconds of any race thus it's totally rational to assume acceleration stops immediately when I stopped watching! Therefore SCIENCE SUXX0RZ!! We still need to see dem macro-acceleration hurr durr.

 

[be.plato]

Totally off-topic, but I saw some F1 replays yesterday. I only watched a few seconds each time and the cars only got from standing still to about 100km/h. Micro-acceleration is totally real! I mean some crazy people out there say those cars can go to over 300km/h, but that's complete bull**** since that's macro-acceleration. I haven't seen any proof of such massive changes in speed by looking at the first 3 seconds of any race thus it's totally rational to assume acceleration stops immediately when I stopped watching! Therefore SCIENCE SUXX0RZ!! We still need to see dem macro-acceleration hurr durr.

I was saying that it would be nice to see an example of macro evolution. There just does not seem to be any evidence of it. The story of the lizards giving live birth well.., they are still coming out of eggs. They just don't lay them earlier.

 

[TJ99]

I was saying that it would be nice to see an example of macro evolution. There just does not seem to be any evidence of it. The story of the lizards giving live birth well.., they are still coming out of eggs. They just don't lay them earlier.

1. There's no such thing as micro- or macro-evolution, it's made up by anti-science loons. Evolution is evolution. The only "difference" is the length of time elapsed. Just like with cars increasing in speed. We're only looking at a tiny instant of evolutionary time in each case. If you studied life for 2 billion years you'd almost certainly see some massive changes.

2. The topic of this thread is hardly revolutionary, as porchrat and others pointed out.

If you actually are interested in these topics, and how actual scientists determine what they do and what evidence they have, I suggest starting with these articles:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html

The second one is especially relevant to your post. (or for anyone who might not know how the scientific method works or what some terms mean) You'll note the articles are full of proper references, they define terms they use properly, and don't try to sell you anything or use any neon lens flare effects whatsoever...

 

[Techne]

1. There's no such thing as micro- or macro-evolution, it's made up by anti-science loons. Evolution is evolution. The only "difference" is the length of time elapsed. Just like with cars increasing in speed. We're only looking at a tiny instant of evolutionary time in each case. If you studied life for 2 billion years you'd almost certainly see some massive changes.

Any person remotely familiar with evolution is aware that the main difference between micro- and macro-evolution is this:
Any evolutionary change at or above the level of species is labelled as macro-evolution and any evolutionary change below the species level is labelled as micro-evolution.

There is nothing controversial about this and pretty standard stuff. Don't insult scientists with such silly generalizations.

 

[w1z4rd]

1. There's no such thing as micro- or macro-evolution, it's made up by anti-science loons. Evolution is evolution. The only "difference" is the length of time elapsed.

Correct.

 

[TJ99]

Any person remotely familiar with evolution is aware that the main difference between micro- and macro-evolution is this:
Any evolutionary change at or above the level of species is labelled as macro-evolution and any evolutionary change below the species level is labelled as micro-evolution.

There is nothing controversial about this and pretty standard stuff. Don't insult scientists with such silly generalizations.

Yeah, I probably phrased that wrong, I should have said that the way scientists use the term usually has a different meaning from that used by crazy people, and that in certain contexts they are useful definitions, you're right there. Still, the only difference is time.

We might have someone here that's atually insterested in learning something without getting bogged down in semantic nonsense as usual.

 

[Techne]

Yeah, I probably phrased that wrong, I should have said that the way scientists use the term usually has a different meaning from that used by crazy people, and that in certain contexts they are useful definitions, you're right there. Still, the only difference is time.

We might have someone here that's atually insterested in learning something without getting bogged down in semantic nonsense as usual.

Language matters. And no, the only difference is not time. Macro-evolution can happen quicker than micro-evolution. A simple example is crocodiles. It diverged from a common ancestor and it underwent only minor or micro-evolutionary changes over eons while, as you can imagine, the other off shoots from the common ancestor underwent many macro-evolutionary changes.

But I get you point, many micro-evolutionary changes over time may manifest as macro-evolutionary changes (so o not of course - crocodiles) and this just further emphasizes the point that the main difference between micro- and macro-evolution is NOT time but "Any evolutionary change at or above the level of species is labelled as macro-evolution and any evolutionary change below the species level is labelled as micro-evolution".

 

[TJ99]

Language matters. And no, the only difference is not time. Macro-evolution can happen quicker than micro-evolution. A simple example is crocodiles. It diverged from a common ancestor and it underwent only minor or micro-evolutionary changes over eons while, as you can imagine, the other off shoots from the common ancestor underwent many macro-evolutionary changes.

That goes without saying, but you know you're comparing changes in different lineages. Looking at a modern crocodile and its ancestors alone, you will see small changes over shorter times and larger changes over longer times.

Regardless, here's another article on how the terms are used differently and how there's still confusion:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

This is from the conclusion:

Macroevolution is at least evolution at or above the level of speciation, but it remains an open debate among scientists whether or not it is solely the end product of microevolutionary processes or there is some other set of processes that causes higher level trends and patterns

So there's disagreement on whether there are additional factors involved.

But then let's use just the definition you gave. According to that, macroevolution is simply any change above species level. The first article I linked to gives evidence for that, without ever needing to go into whether one is just the accumulation of the other, or whether other factors are involved. It shows evidence of changes above species level, plain and simple.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

I was saying that it would be nice to see an example of macro evolution. There just does not seem to be any evidence of it. The story of the lizards giving live birth well.., they are still coming out of eggs. They just don't lay them earlier.

Time for this pic again, it seems.