(May 9, 2014 at 1:47 pm)alpha male Wrote:

(May 9, 2014 at 1:14 pm)Esquilax Wrote: I'm not even sure what "existing variation potential" means. It seems like another offshoot of whatever mechanism you think exists that prevents the crossing of species lines, to me. Any variation is evolution, and I'd like to know how you demonstrate and quantify that this is due to some nebulous "potential."

I should have said genetic diversity.
Genetic diversity, the level of biodiversity, refers to the total number of genetic characteristics in the genetic makeup of a species. It is distinguished from genetic variability, which describes the tendency of genetic characteristics to vary.

Genetic diversity serves as a way for populations to adapt to changing environments. With more variation, it is more likely that some individuals in a population will possess variations of alleles that are suited for the environment. Those individuals are more likely to survive to produce offspring bearing that allele. The population will continue for more generations because of the success of these individuals.

The lizards adapted to a new environment. We don't know if these adaptations were due to new mutations, as you propose, or from existing genetic diversity. Considering the number of changes and the speed of change, genetic diversity seems like a more likely explanation.

This seems to result in a Hobbesian choice for the macroevolution advocate. If the species divergence is rapid, within an observable time frame, there's reason to suspect the change occurred as a result of pre-existing genetic diversity. If the change occurs outside of an observable time frame, the definitions of species which depend on reproductive compatibility often cannot be applied, and arguments from morphology and taxonomy have to suffice, and those definitions of species cannot establish macroevolution at the genetic level. And a criticism at this level can be aimed at ring species, as a species can contain enough genetic diversity for descendants of two linneages to develop post-zygotic reproductive incompatibility while retaining gene level reproductive compatibility. That two populations in a ring species don't interbreed is not sufficient to demonstrate the type of genetic level reproductive incompatibility that macroevolution requires. It's not even clear whether genetic incompatibility between arms of a ring species demonstrates the kind of genetic change required for macroevolution as commonly proposed. I don't buy the creationist explanations derived from reproductive isolation being a result of the fall, but naturalistic explanations may exist. (The Grey Tree Frog example is a possible counter-example, but again, nobody saw that speciation event either.)

(May 9, 2014 at 2:15 pm)Chuck Wrote:

(May 9, 2014 at 2:07 pm)coldwx Wrote: Those quotes were used to rebut your assertion about what the article's point was. You stated, and put into quotes, "while cumulative micro-evolution alone is already sufficient in itself to cause macro-evolution, other factors also contributed to the actual path taken by macroevolution". I asked where in the article that was stated. You did not answer. I never argued for or against any position, I simply pointed out what I though was a pertinent article by a biochemist. I firmly believe the evidence of gradualism is sound, however there are differing viewpoints, not on macroevolution itself, but within the nuances that deserve attention. My argument with you was regarding what the article's point was.

I think the article's focuses on why microevolution by itself can not be used to fully explain the actual trajectory of macroevolution. But it does not explicitly deny, and the author most likely endorse, microevolution explaining why there is, and almost certainly must be, macroevolution in the real life conditions of earth.

Fair enough.

(May 9, 2014 at 2:07 pm)alpha male Wrote:

(May 9, 2014 at 1:52 pm)coldwx Wrote: I thought I pursued it by linking to another article by Theobald which discusses some of the criticisms. I admitted I was being lazy though because I had too much to do that day. Now, please restate your problem with the unity of life for me if you would. I do not understand how the multiple instances of abiogenesis relate to macroevolution or somehow disprove it. I think Theobald makes it clear that the subjects are different. As I said though, maybe I am misunderstanding your problem.

Sure. Consider this from the article's definition of scientific evidence (whic I find to be very good):

Furthermore, a scientific explanation must make risky predictions— the predictions should be necessary if the theory is correct, and few other theories should make the same necessary predictions.

The fundamental unity of life is not a risky prediction for macroevolution. A new form of life could be explained with no harm to evolution in several ways:

1. A second instance of abiogenesis
2. Evolution beyond what we've seen before
3. An instance of panspermia

I'm still hazy on why the conflation of origin and unity and how these examples weaken macroevolution. Even Theobald notes that nothing rules out multiple instances of abiogenesis but that they must have died out.

(May 9, 2014 at 12:18 pm)alpha male Wrote:

(May 9, 2014 at 11:42 am)coldwx Wrote: In all fairness to Mister and Alpha, here is a great article from Dr. Moran on the micro/macro debate. The point is made that gradualism alone is not sufficient and there are many other things to consider. Micro and Macro evolution are not competing however it is not adequate to simply dismiss macroevolution as a whole bunch of microevolution. Worth a read.

http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/Evolution...ution.html

Great read. As Gould says, "We may attain a unified theory of process, but the processes work differently at different levels and we cannot extrapolate from one level to encompass all events at the next."

And Gould was profoundly wrong. There is only one level at which evolution operates: selection of genes via the proxy of the phenotype.

---

(May 9, 2014 at 1:11 pm)coldwx Wrote:

(May 9, 2014 at 12:14 pm)Chuck Wrote: Uh, no. The point made in the cited article is "while cummulative micro-evolution alone is already sufficient in itself to cause macro-evolution, other factors also contributed to the actual path taken by macroevolution".

It does not say "micro-evolution" is in principle insufficient to explain "macro-evolution".

In essence, macro-evolution is a series of micro-evolution, guided by conditions and changes in conditions of the ambient environment.

Help me out, I am trying to find where in the article it states what you quoted. Here are some quotes directly from the artice:

"Nobody denies that macroevolutionary processes involve the fundamental mechanisms of natural selection and random genetic drift, but these microevolutionary processes are not sufficient, by themselves, to explain the history of life."

"Since speciation is not a direct consequence of changes in the frequencies of alleles in a population, it follows that microevolution is not sufficient to explain all of evolution."

Those two statements are false. The writer claims that he is not knowledgeable about macro-evolution and then goes on to prove that by giving a very unconventional definition of it.

(May 9, 2014 at 6:07 pm)Chas Wrote: And Gould was profoundly wrong. There is only one level at which evolution operates: selection of genes via the proxy of the phenotype.

Your pronouncement is noted. Others think that the unit of selection can be the cell, group, species, or higher level.

(May 10, 2014 at 10:11 am)alpha male Wrote:

(May 9, 2014 at 6:07 pm)Chas Wrote: And Gould was profoundly wrong. There is only one level at which evolution operates: selection of genes via the proxy of the phenotype.

Your pronouncement is noted. Others think that the unit of selection can be the cell, group, species, or higher level.

And those are illusory or easily reducible to the genetic level.

Wikipedia Wrote:Most modern evolutionary biologists accept that the idea [gene level] is consistent with many processes in evolution. However, the view that selection on other levels, such as organisms and populations, seldom opposes selection on genes is more controversial. While naïve versions of group selectionism have been disproved, more sophisticated formulations make accurate predictions in some cases while positing selection at higher levels. Nevertheless, the explanatory gains of using sophisticated formulations of group selectionism as opposed to Dawkins's gene-centred selectionism are still under dispute. Both sides agree that very favourable genes are likely to prosper and replicate if they arise and both sides agree that living in groups can be an advantage to the group members. The conflict arises not so much over disputes on hard facts but over what is the best way of viewing evolutionary selection in animals.

(May 10, 2014 at 11:05 am)Chas Wrote: And those are illusory or easily reducible to the genetic level.

Wikipedia Wrote:Most modern evolutionary biologists accept that the idea [gene level] is consistent with many processes in evolution. However, the view that selection on other levels, such as organisms and populations, seldom opposes selection on genes is more controversial. While naïve versions of group selectionism have been disproved, more sophisticated formulations make accurate predictions in some cases while positing selection at higher levels. Nevertheless, the explanatory gains of using sophisticated formulations of group selectionism as opposed to Dawkins's gene-centred selectionism are still under dispute. Both sides agree that very favourable genes are likely to prosper and replicate if they arise and both sides agree that living in groups can be an advantage to the group members. The conflict arises not so much over disputes on hard facts but over what is the best way of viewing evolutionary selection in animals.

Your quote is unsourced and doesn't even support your position.

That just may be the definition of irony.

(May 10, 2014 at 12:28 pm)alpha male Wrote:

(May 10, 2014 at 11:05 am)Chas Wrote: And those are illusory or easily reducible to the genetic level.

Your quote is unsourced and doesn't even support your position.

Unsourced? Do you not know of Wikipedia?

And, yes, it does support my position. It calls into question anything above the gene level.

There are no mechanisms known for evolution above the gene/phenotype level. That is why "group selection" has failed.

To the OP.
Yes, I understand your theory.

I also understand there are only 2 areas which are provable-
Mathematics (where lying is quickly found out and serves no purpose).
And demonstrative science- "We did this - we got that".

All other human endeavors are subject to interpretation, lying and manipulation.

It is foolish to denigrate those not on board with your theory.
You think everyone not in your ship are uninformed or stupid?
Give me a break.

Here is one I have often thought about:
Mechanically oriented people joke about Murphy's Law, which says "Anything that can go wrong will".
Your car (if you have one, or your bicycle tires) are a perfect example of this.
It better be right, or you will meet Murphy up close and intimate.

We who design things usually do everything possible to disable Murphy's Law.
That law, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics should be enough to put nails in the coffin of your theory.
Hope springs eternal doesn't it.