Macro- vs Micro-evolution

[Swa]

The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear No.

[Roger Lewin, "Evolutionary theory under fire," Science, vol. 210 (4472), 21 November 1980, p. 883]
So the central question of A CONFERENCE is micro- vs macro-evolution. Funny to have a conference for something non-existent, can explain why scientists never get things done. The second sentence is even more profound.

Darwin anticipated that microevolution would be a process of continuous and gradual change. The term macroevolution, by contrast, refers to the origin of new species and divisions of the taxonomic hierarchy above the species level, and also to the origin of complex adaptations, such as the vertebrate eye. Macroevolution posed a problem to Darwin because his principle of descent with modification predicts gradual transitions between small-scale adaptive changes in populations and these larger-scale phenomena, yet there is little evidence for such transitions in nature.

[Reznick, David N., Robert E. Ricklefs. 12 February 2009. Darwin's bridge between microevolution and macroevolution. Nature, Vol. 457, pp. 837-842]
Darwin found something that doens't exist as a problem for his theory? :wtf: But let's just carry on...

Established species are evolving so slowly that major transitions between genera and higher taxa must be occurring within small rapidly evolving populations that leave NO LEGIBLE FOSSIL RECORD.

[Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution and the Fossil Record, Vol. 36, No. 3, 1986, p. 460. (emphasis added)]

The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that a gradualistic model can be valid.

[Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: W. M. Freeman & Co., 1979, p. 39.]

Anybody noticed the bolded parts? Strange that macro-evolution is not only a creationists invention but it's also used to name science articles and books. Can we now finally get an admission from these zealots that there is a real and scientific difference between micro- and macro-evolution?

 

[cyghost]

I said it once, I said it a million times, the only "real and scientific difference" between micro and macro is time scale. Do you get this?

from wiki - Macroevolution can be seen as the sum of long periods of microevolution, and thus the two are qualitatively identical while being quantitatively different.

And this from the macro page

Such claims are rejected by the scientific community on the basis of ample evidence that macroevolution is an active process both presently and in the past.[5][15] The terms macroevolution and microevolution relate to the same processes operating at different scales, but creationist claims misuse the terms in a vaguely defined way which does not accurately reflect scientific usage, acknowledging well observed evolution as "microevolution" and denying that "macroevolution" takes place.[5][16] Evolutionary theory (including macroevolutionary change) remains the dominant scientific paradigm for explaining the origins of Earth's biodiversity. Its occurrence is not disputed within the scientific community.[17] While details of macroevolution are continuously studied by the scientific community, the overall theory behind macroevolution (i.e. common descent) has been overwhelmingly consistent with empirical data. Predictions of empirical data from the theory of common descent have been so consistent that biologists often refer to it as the "fact of evolution".[18][19]

Nicholas Matzke and Paul R. Gross have accused creationists of using "strategically elastic" definitions of micro- and macroevolution when discussing the topic.[1] The actual definition of macroevolution accepted by scientists is "any change at the species level or above" (phyla, group, etc.) and microevolution is "any change below the level of species." Matzke and Gross state that many creationist critics define macroevolution as something that cannot be attained, as these critics describe any observed evolutionary change as "just microevolution".[1]

Be that as it may, still over your head and level of comprehension, we have observed speciation and all that is left for cretinists is to deny observable reality. Good luck with that.

ps: I'll not speak about this here again. Your responses will be ignored.

 

[Swa]

/snip

Nicholas Matzke and Paul R. Gross have accused creationists of using "strategically elastic" definitions of micro- and macroevolution when discussing the topic.[1] The actual definition of macroevolution accepted by scientists is "any change at the species level or above" (phyla, group, etc.) and microevolution is "any change below the level of species." Matzke and Gross state that many creationist critics define macroevolution as something that cannot be attained, as these critics describe any observed evolutionary change as "just microevolution".[1][/i]

/snip

Your own cited article says there IS A DIFFERENCE between micro- and macro-evolution. Way to go in denying the obvious. Exactly the ignorant comment I was looking for.

ps: I'll not speak about this here again. Your responses will be ignored.

Fine remain ignorant, don't let the door...

 

[Jab]

[Roger Lewin, "Evolutionary theory under fire," Science, vol. 210 (4472), 21 November 1980, p. 883]
So the central question of A CONFERENCE is micro- vs macro-evolution. Funny to have a conference for something non-existent, can explain why scientists never get things done. The second sentence is even more profound.


[Reznick, David N., Robert E. Ricklefs. 12 February 2009. Darwin's bridge between microevolution and macroevolution. Nature, Vol. 457, pp. 837-842]
Darwin found something that doens't exist as a problem for his theory? :wtf: But let's just carry on...


[Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution and the Fossil Record, Vol. 36, No. 3, 1986, p. 460. (emphasis added)]

[Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: W. M. Freeman & Co., 1979, p. 39.]

Anybody noticed the bolded parts? Strange that macro-evolution is not only a creationists invention but it's also used to name science articles and books. Can we now finally get an admission from these zealots that there is a real and scientific difference between micro- and macro-evolution?

 

[copacetic]

I simply cannot fathom what it is that people find complicated about this. :erm:

 

[cyghost]

I'm not going to argue with Nick Matzke, the man is a ****ing genius. So if it makes you happy, I'll admit that that is a DIFFERENCE on the face of it. The mother****ing underlying principles, however, is the same. Can you admit to that?

Which makes any sort of comment about 'accepting micro but not macro' moronic on a level hard to exceed. Coupled with the fact that we have observed speciation any ****ing such ass gravy smells for what it is. Bull****ing****.

Now. Would you kindly stop smelling up the science section with anti-science sentiment and misunderstandings and misrepresentations? I like reading here more than I like participating, for the most part because I am not scared to admit ignorance and can actually learn from what people with a real interest in science post and not have to wallow in crap such as you have been dishing up.

 

[TJ99]

I simply cannot fathom what it is that people find complicated about this. :erm:

Me neither, it's plain as day. I'm pretty sure it's not the understanding that's the problem though...

 

[Geriatrix]

Why are we posting articles from the 70s and 80s now? Seriously?

 

[porchrat]

Oh for fscks sake TAKE IT TO PD!!!

Leave the Natural Sciences section alone!!!

If you have to mention creationism even ONCE in your OP it does not belong in Natural Sciences!

 

[Swa]

I simply cannot fathom what it is that people find complicated about this. :erm:

Err... simple. Evolution is not red text artificially changed to blue. This again proves why analogies are terrible at explaining things. But if you absolutely must use them to understand something at least make it proper ones.

 

[Swa]

Oh for fscks sake TAKE IT TO PD!!!

Leave the Natural Sciences section alone!!!

If you have to mention creationism even ONCE in your OP it does not belong in Natural Sciences!

Take your propaganda elsewhere. It's a science question with scientists admitting there's a difference between the two contrary to what the crap spewers here want to claim.

 

[copacetic]

Err... simple. Evolution is not red text artificially changed to blue. This again proves why analogies are terrible at explaining things. But if you absolutely must use them to understand something at least make it proper ones.

Analogies are not the issue here.

Again, it bewilders me that people struggle to understand such a monumentally simple concept.

Micro and macro evolution both describe different... states of observation, I suppose, but the process is identical for both.

 

[porchrat]

Take your propaganda elsewhere. It's a science question with scientists admitting there's a difference between the two contrary to what the crap spewers here want to claim.

There is no difference. As copa has so wonderfully summed up they are 2 words describing the same f'ing process.

There is no micro vs. macro debate.

All that and you accuse me of somehow utilising propaganda?!? :wtf:

 

[alloytoo]

Analogies are not the issue here.

Again, it bewilders me that people struggle to understand such a monumentally simple concept.

Micro and macro evolution both describe different... states of observation, I suppose, but the process is identical for both.

Well then, all that leaves is for Swa to describe the heitherto unknown mechanism which inhibits cumulative "micro"-evolution from becoming "macro" evolution.

 

[Swa]

All that and you accuse me of somehow utilising propaganda?!? :wtf:

The propaganda is you trying to shut down conversation by claiming science does not belong in the science section. FYI these are real science topics discussed at many science conferences. Shows how much you know of actual science yet you have the gall to ask me to give MY qualification.

Forget about your ****ing hangups about what someone did to you in your childhood. We all have some sad soppy story but we don't all go and troll over topics in forums that we don't want to be discussed. You have a brain not just to understand things with but to ignore what you don't want to hear or know so start using that and let people discuss what IS actually science.

 

[Swa]

Well then, all that leaves is for Swa to describe the heitherto unknown mechanism which inhibits cumulative "micro"-evolution from becoming "macro" evolution.

Off topic really but the burden of proof is on YOU to provide proof not only that it can happen but has happened. This all important proof is still missing and filled with "it will just happen given long enough."

 

[Geriatrix]

Please define micro-evolution.

 

[Spizz]

Off topic really but the burden of proof is on YOU to provide proof not only that it can happen but has happened. This all important proof is still missing and filled with "it will just happen given long enough."

Practically, how would you go about proving it if not by using words. Popping into Fossils R Us isn't really an option now, is it?

But funny how proof is needed and DEMANDED to explain something that is logically consistent with our observations, but no such proof needed for believing in God.

I suppose it all comes down to how hard you were indoctrinated as a kid and how much your brain has evolved to ask the necessary questions outside of your comfort zone. It seems to a certain type of person that it is more prudent to search for years to disprove evolution than take a couple of hours to understand it.

 

[Unhappy438]

Time is the only difference between micro and macro evolution.

[video=youtube;dcCWA-3VFZM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcCWA-3VFZM[/video]

 

[porchrat]

Off topic really but the burden of proof is on YOU to provide proof not only that it can happen but has happened. This all important proof is still missing and filled with "it will just happen given long enough."

Why do you keep demanding proof?

This is a scientific theory. It must explain and be consistent with our observations. So far it is.

Theories aren't about proof. Science isn't about proof.