Macro- vs Micro-evolution

[SaiyanZ]

Rearrange GODDIDIT and you get IDIOT. Still have to find out what the remaining GDD stands for.

 

[Swa]

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.

Again evolution is practically infinitely more complex than just some text changing color or a couple of drawings slightly changed. If your analogies are true I can use them to prove that a car can change into a jet.

Here's more on what the experts say:

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.]

Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.

[George Gaylord Simpson, The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360.]

Few paleontologists have, I think, ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred. The fossil record doesn’t even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories, and special creationist theories, and even ahistorical theories.

[David B. Kitts, "Search for the Holy Transformation," Paleobiology, Vol. 5 (Summer 1979), pp. 353-354.]

Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so.

[E.R. Leach, Nature 293:19, 1981]

At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the “official” position of most Western evolutionists. Smooth intermediates between Baupläne are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count).

[S.J. Gould & Niles Eldredge, Paleobiology 3:147, 1977]

The extreme rarity of transitional forms is the trade secret of paleontology ... The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'

[S.J. Gould, Natural History 86:14 (1977)]

Not only IS there a difference between micro- and macro-evolution but it's so large that fierce proponents of evolution like Eldredge and Gould were convinced small changes don't add up gradually to make large changes but that evolution happens suddenly in small groups - punctuated equilibrium.

So are we still going to have anyone claim there's no difference but time when the experts say it isn't just a difference but a problem and actually discuss it among themselves?

 

[copacetic]

*I'm not interested*

Sorry.

I'm sure other people will bite though.

 

[porchrat]

LOL Swa quoted someone that says there are "special creationist theories"

 

[Swa]

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.

Funny how something that's quite possibly not true requires no real proof to believe it but God can't possibly exist unless He's proven. Hypocrisy much?

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.

Just change the word evolution there to God and it's right back at ya buddy.

Why do you keep demanding proof?

Why do you keep demanding proof for God?

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

Yes it's only consistent. One of my quotes above also has an admission that the fossil record is consistent with creation as it is with evolution so consistency ultimately doesn't provide proof.

Theories aren't about proof.

A self refuting argument.

 

[Archer]

Lol at trueorigins copy pasting
http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp

 

[porchrat]

Why do you keep demanding proof for God?

I... uh... don't

Also anyone mention God or creationism one more fscking time and I am reporting this religious horse schit thread and asking that it be moved to PD. Try me Swa.

Yes it's only consistent. One of my quotes above also has an admission that the fossil record is consistent with creation as it is with evolution so consistency ultimately doesn't provide proof.

The fossil record is consistent with creation? Not when you bring the geological column into it it isn't.

A self refuting argument.

Nope. They are about EVIDENCE... not proof. Always have been and always will be. Not self refuting at all but perfectly logical.

 

[Swa]

Lol at trueorigins copy pasting
http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp

Here's one for you too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Circumstantial

 

[Unhappy438]

Yes it's only consistent. One of my quotes above also has an admission that the fossil record is consistent with creation as it is with evolution so consistency ultimately doesn't provide proof.

 

[Geriatrix]

Here's more on what the experts say:

[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.]

[George Gaylord Simpson, The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360.]

[David B. Kitts, "Search for the Holy Transformation," Paleobiology, Vol. 5 (Summer 1979), pp. 353-354.]

[E.R. Leach, Nature 293:19, 1981]

[S.J. Gould & Niles Eldredge, Paleobiology 3:147, 1977]

[S.J. Gould, Natural History 86:14 (1977)]

How about we work with some sources from this decade?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution

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]

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evoscales_01

 

[Swa]

Also anyone mention God one more fscking time and I am reporting this religious horse schit thread and asking that it be moved to PD. Try me Swa.

Are you the self appointed forum authority? Also take a look who mentioned God first. I already told you, take your hangups and propaganda elsewhere and ignore things you prefer not to discuss. IGNORE - IGNORE - IGNORE You are capable of it.

The fossil record is consistent with creation? Not when you bring the geological column into it it isn't.

According to David B. Kitts it is.

Nope. They are about EVIDENCE... not proof. Always have been and always will be. Not self refuting at all but perfectly logical.

If you want to claim something is proven it HAS to be about proof. Claiming it's not about proof is self refuting. A simple enough concept that even children I speak to understand it.

 

[Swa]

Geriatrix, it doesn't matter what sources you pick. Gould notes that evolution on the macro level was a problem for Darwin and unobserved since then. Nothing has changed there today.

What is actually profound is that there IS a difference not just with time. The fact that it's discussed in conferences or wherever scientists congregate proves that. Yet some people will still deny it. Kinda like denying there's a war when bullets are flying over their head.

 

[porchrat]

Are you the self appointed forum authority? Also take a look who mentioned God first. I already told you, take your hangups and propaganda elsewhere and ignore things you prefer not to discuss. IGNORE - IGNORE - IGNORE You are capable of it.

I'm not ignoring religious crap in the Natural Sciences section. Stop discussing religion in the Science section or I am reporting it. This is not the place for religious stuff.

End. Of. Discussion.

According to David B. Kitts it is.

How nice for him.

If you want to claim something is proven it HAS to be about proof.

Don't think I ever did so that isn't a problem for me. Go logic go!!!

Claiming it's not about proof is self refuting.

Not when you understand what a scientific theory is. Go logic go!

A simple enough concept that even children I speak to understand it.

You are teaching children that scientific theories are about proof? Please stop teaching children about things you don't understand then. You are ruining young minds with garbage.

 

[Geriatrix]

Geriatrix, it doesn't matter what sources you pick. Gould notes that evolution on the macro level was a problem for Darwin and unobserved since then. Nothing has changed there today.

No, Swa, that is not true.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39782306/ns/technology_and_science-science/#.T9sHsbVacgI
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylonase
There are more examples but you can Google them yourself.

Now, if you're expecting us human beings to observing changes amounting to the difference between, say, cats and dogs, within one lifetime you're being unrealistic, as that level of change simply does not happen within 70 odd years. Hell, some species remain in relative stable equilibrium for millions of years with very little changes to their anatomical structures.

What is actually profound is that there IS a difference not just with time. The fact that it's discussed in conferences or wherever scientists congregate proves that. Yet some people will still deny it. Kinda like denying there's a war when bullets are flying over their head.

Please provide reference for this claim. I know some biologists and this is simply not an issue.

 

[Geriatrix]

Another great read regarding this and how different chromosome counts evolve;
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/21/basics-how-can-chromosome-numb/

 

[Geriatrix]

Don't listen to these fools Swa. Ignore their links, we both know evolution is a lie.

Yes, you go believe whatever you want. It's a free country. Just don't try and force your beliefs on me.

 

[Geriatrix]

More.
[video=youtube;qh7OclPDN_s]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qh7OclPDN_s[/video]

 

[Geriatrix]

[video=youtube;De-OkzTUDVA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA[/video]

Techne might probably be have better videos bookmarked somewhere detailing how small changes in causality lead to larger scale changes in later organism development, he digs this stuff way more than I do.

 

[Unhappy438]

Don't listen to these fools Swa. Ignore their links, we both know evolution is a lie.

1 post , seems legit.

 

[Spizz]

Geriatrix, it doesn't matter what sources you pick. Gould notes that evolution on the macro level was a problem for Darwin and unobserved since then. Nothing has changed there today.

What is actually profound is that there IS a difference not just with time. The fact that it's discussed in conferences or wherever scientists congregate proves that. Yet some people will still deny it. Kinda like denying there's a war when bullets are flying over their head.

I wonder what proof you would like? What would be acceptable to you? Obviously words are not enough because there are many examples but it seems like anyone who says the fossil record is proof enough seems to have some other agenda to you and your agenda loving people. For example in The Greatest Show on Earth, Prof Dawkins repeatedly states evolution is fact and backed it up with examples.

Why is he not to be believed?

Well I know, and I'm sorry to mention it Porchrat because this is fundamental to the debate. but it's his lack of faith that discounts him immediately.

You probably avoid him like the plague. And if you don't, I'd love to know why you disagree with his statement that evolution is fact. Again, is it not easier to read a book than spend your life quote mining to 'prove' your own jaundiced theories?