Evolution, religion, and ignorance.

[John V]

Now, stop. If something is observed to happen, and we have evidence of it happening, then is that not reason enough to infer that it will continue to happen, without the intervention of some outside force?

No, it isn't. rasetsu already explained this, and Mister Agenda kudoed it. To my knowledge they're not YECs, yet they see the error in your method. This isn't some creationist trick. Your argument is faulty - it's an extrapolation fallacy coupled with an argument from ignorance fallacy.

---

Heh, cool, I didn't know about the tree frog example, that's awesome.

And kind of the end of the argument, John.

Key line is, "At some point in their history..." This is the same as your skink. You see differences and assume change. Further, IIRC the only definition of macroevolution introduced in the thread was given by Mister Agenda: "Macroevolution is evolution above the species level leading to taxonomic divergence." Speciation itself is not macroevolution by this definition.

[pocaracas]

It seems to me that this "macro" "micro" divide is something that is hard to grasp.
Let's put the Macro-micro divide at the appearance of a new species.
Something that's also hard to grasp is that there's no hard boundary between one species and another, hence this divide is impossible to define.

Much like the old light spectrum and the hard color divide... "Where does the red turn to green?"
It is true that, at one point, we have red and at the other we have green, but the exact turning point is not clear... it is not a single wavelength, it is a broad interval of the spectrum where one can claim that a color is a mix of both red and green.... and it passes through colors we know as yellow and orange.

What Esq has been arguing is that there's no mechanism that would prevent several small wavelength changes to cause a shift in color from red to green.... the color would always be red, right alpha?
I know I'm using an analogy as, as such, you can call "strawman", so let's go back to the evolution thing.

Small genetic adaptations have been observed in several living beings, what's called microevolution. These observed changes have never been enough to bring forth a new species, according to the biologists' classification for that... even within asexual bacteria.

There's also the fossil record showing different animals at different time instances and some of them share a few traits through time.... hinting that they were somehow related. The traits that don't follow from one time instance to the next have been interpreted as evolution at work, discarding what doesn't work in the ever changing environment and getting new features that work better. We see these different animals as a different species.
This is exactly what one would expect if the small changes were to accumulate throughout the generations.

Do bear in mind that a generation is not a fixed amount of time and depends heavily on which species we're analyzing.

[Esquilax]

No, it isn't. rasetsu already explained this, and Mister Agenda kudoed it. To my knowledge they're not YECs, yet they see the error in your method. This isn't some creationist trick. Your argument is faulty - it's an extrapolation fallacy coupled with an argument from ignorance fallacy.

Not to give short shrift to Rasetsu or Mister A, since I consider them both to be smart little bastards ( ) but the requisites for who I agree with don't boil down to "not a creationist." I can, and do, disagree with them on this issue, and after going back and rereading Rasetsu's post, I can tell you why.

The problem, broadly speaking, is a failure to take into account what defines a species when making her argument. What, exactly, is she using to determine what belongs in one species and what belongs in another? Population genetics demonstrably change, as does physiology, and if those aren't markers of speciation, what are? Is the proposition that genetics and physiology don't change, in spite of the evidence we're able to produce in a lab? Or is it that they don't change enough, and if so, where does one draw that line, given the huge variances we get in, say, dog breeds over a relatively short period of selective breeding within recorded human history? Or the observed instances of speciation that we've produced in a lab? By all accounts, our ability to observe both speciation and vastly different physiologies is fairly comprehensive, so what is this definition of species we're using that ignores both of those in order to make macro-evolution some distant thing?

As to this idea that we're assuming that these mutations will continue in a single direction... first of all, no we're not, as I've acknowledged multiple times that they don't always go in the same direction, but this faux confusion as to where we'd even get the idea that they would is baffling: the mechanism of natural selection, which provides the incentive for those changes to propagate and intensify over time, has been understood and observed for many, many years. In fact, we have evidence that these changes do continue to intensify in certain situations: Here, have some italian wall lizards.

So, the changes occur, and we know it's possible for them to occur and continue to intensify in line with the predictive power of natural selection, and we also know that by any genetic or cladistic definition this would eventually vary an organism out of one species classification and therefore into another... maybe it is just an inference based on observable evidence, but that's kind of what science is.

And it's a hell of a lot better than the bare assertion that it can't happen because argument from ignorance.

Key line is, "At some point in their history..." This is the same as your skink. You see differences and assume change.

Would you quit it with this "were you there?" crap?

Further, IIRC the only definition of macroevolution introduced in the thread was given by Mister Agenda: "Macroevolution is evolution above the species level leading to taxonomic divergence." Speciation itself is not macroevolution by this definition.

And what defines taxonomic classifications if not genetic and morphological differences?

[John V]

Not to give short shrift to Rasetsu or Mister A, since I consider them both to be smart little bastards ( ) but the requisites for who I agree with don't boil down to "not a creationist." I can, and do, disagree with them on this issue, and after going back and rereading Rasetsu's post, I can tell you why.

And again, when smart people disagree on something, it's not a given.

The problem, broadly speaking, is a failure to take into account what defines a species when making her argument. What, exactly, is she using to determine what belongs in one species and what belongs in another? Population genetics demonstrably change, as does physiology, and if those aren't markers of speciation, what are?

Unless you're claiming that each new generation is a new species, such change does not necessarily indicate speciation. Further, the definition of macroevolution floated earlier specified change above the species level.

Is the proposition that genetics and physiology don't change, in spite of the evidence we're able to produce in a lab?

No.

Or is it that they don't change enough,

That's it - we haven't observed such change. You simply look at two populations which are similar but not exact duplicates and assume that one changed into the other.

and if so, where does one draw that line, given the huge variances we get in, say, dog breeds over a relatively short period of selective breeding within recorded human history?

That's an interesting point that I'll get into if anyone takes up the 29+ banner and we make it all the way to alleged fossil evidence. If all dogs are one species, then shouldn't we require that fossils with less difference than that known in dogs to be classified as the same species?

Or the observed instances of speciation that we've produced in a lab? By all accounts, our ability to observe both speciation and vastly different physiologies is fairly comprehensive, so what is this definition of species we're using that ignores both of those in order to make macro-evolution some distant thing?

We never agreed that speciation was equivalent to macroevolution, and in fact have had a definition of macroevolution that specified change above the species level.

As to this idea that we're assuming that these mutations will continue in a single direction... first of all, no we're not, as I've acknowledged multiple times that they don't always go in the same direction, but this faux confusion as to where we'd even get the idea that they would is baffling:

Uh, Sparky, we got that idea from your analogy: "the logical view is that small, demonstrable changes will build up, just as it's logical to consider that if I walk solidly in one direction without interruption, I will eventually have walked a mile."

So, the changes occur, and we know it's possible for them to occur and continue to intensify in line with the predictive power of natural selection, and we also know that by any genetic or cladistic definition this would eventually vary an organism out of one species classification and therefore into another... maybe it is just an inference based on observable evidence, but that's kind of what science is.

Inference based on observation isn't scientific evidence. Inference can give ideas for objectively testable, risky, falsifiable predictions. Those predictions are scientific evidence. Try reading the TO bit on scientific evidence.

Would you quit it with this "were you there?" crap?

No.

And what defines taxonomic classifications if not genetic and morphological differences?

Addressed above. It's a matter of extent.

[Anomalocaris]

Smart people mostly disagree with your bible, yet you seem to take it as given, you duplicitous, goal post shifting, special pledging, quote mining little shit.

[Rampant.A.I.]

Now, stop. If something is observed to happen, and we have evidence of it happening, then is that not reason enough to infer that it will continue to happen, without the intervention of some outside force?

No, it isn't. rasetsu already explained this, and Mister Agenda kudoed it. To my knowledge they're not YECs, yet they see the error in your method. This isn't some creationist trick. Your argument is faulty - it's an extrapolation fallacy coupled with an argument from ignorance fallacy.

---

Heh, cool, I didn't know about the tree frog example, that's awesome.

And kind of the end of the argument, John.

Key line is, "At some point in their history..." This is the same as your skink. You see differences and assume change. Further, IIRC the only definition of macroevolution introduced in the thread was given by Mister Agenda: "Macroevolution is evolution above the species level leading to taxonomic divergence." Speciation itself is not macroevolution by this definition.

There's no cure for belligerent ignorance. He's literally incapable of understanding and retaining the information.

He's just repeating the same objections, over and over again, like a trained parrot.

It doesn't matter how many times it's explained to him: Alpha Male is either too brainwashed or too dense to understand why he's already accepted "macro" evolution.

[Anomalocaris]

No, "alpha" male is capable of retaining information, just lacking the intellectual backbone necessary to deal with the fact that reality is under no obligation to some higher benevolent power to please "alpha" male.

So he retain only those same old information which pleases him, and discard all those which illuminates what is really going on.

He is undoubtedly stupid. But he could not have become this big of a moron using mere native stupidity alone. It takes profound moral and intellectual immaturity also.

[Rampant.A.I.]

Belligerent willful ignorance then, since he seems to suffer from "nuh-uh" Tourette's syndrome.

[Chas]

I would have to disagree with the supposition that once you've demonstrated microevolution you've thereby demonstrated macroevolution because macroevolution is "just more of the same." That's an unscientific assumption that a trend will, left to its own devices, continue in the same direction and at the same pace. This isn't a valid assumption in the general case, and it's not valid as an assumption in this case. We don't know enough about the mechanics of genetics to say that there are no limits to variability at the biological level "based solely on observation of microevolution in existing genetic populations." The conclusion that macroevolution occurs is one based on a pattern of evidence, it's an inference from a lot of evidence. In that respect, it is categorically different from microevolution. We can see microevolution and demonstrate it in the lab. The same can't be said for macroevolution; it must be inferred from a pattern of evidences. Thus I think there is a real barrier to both the demonstration of macroevolution, and the acceptance of it, which doesn't exist with microevolution. Both can be demonstrated to occur, yet the demonstration of macroevolution is categorically different from the demonstration of microevolution, and with that difference enters the possibility of doubt of the former, while simultaneously accepting the latter. This is not just pigheaded refusal to accept that microevolution and macroevolution as being the same; it's an acknowledgement that the evidence for one and the evidence for the other are unique. One can withhold assent for macroevolution without being inconsistent in one's acceptance of microevolution, and I don't think the burden is necessarily on the skeptic of macroevolution. If the evolution advocate's position is simply assuming that the trend of microevolution can extend beyond the boundaries of species, then he or she needs to demonstrate it with more than an assumption of uniformity of trend.

I'm afraid the burden is still on the denier to present a mechanism that limits change.

---

Now, stop. If something is observed to happen, and we have evidence of it happening, then is that not reason enough to infer that it will continue to happen, without the intervention of some outside force?

No, it isn't. rasetsu already explained this, and Mister Agenda kudoed it. To my knowledge they're not YECs, yet they see the error in your method. This isn't some creationist trick. Your argument is faulty - it's an extrapolation fallacy coupled with an argument from ignorance fallacy.

Rasetsu explained incompletely and incorrectly.

You need to demonstrate that there is a limiting mechanism to the accumulation of change.

---

---

Not to give short shrift to Rasetsu or Mister A, since I consider them both to be smart little bastards ( ) but the requisites for who I agree with don't boil down to "not a creationist." I can, and do, disagree with them on this issue, and after going back and rereading Rasetsu's post, I can tell you why.

And again, when smart people disagree on something, it's not a given.

The problem, broadly speaking, is a failure to take into account what defines a species when making her argument. What, exactly, is she using to determine what belongs in one species and what belongs in another? Population genetics demonstrably change, as does physiology, and if those aren't markers of speciation, what are?

Unless you're claiming that each new generation is a new species, such change does not necessarily indicate speciation. Further, the definition of macroevolution floated earlier specified change above the species level.

Is the proposition that genetics and physiology don't change, in spite of the evidence we're able to produce in a lab?

No.

Or is it that they don't change enough,

That's it - we haven't observed such change. You simply look at two populations which are similar but not exact duplicates and assume that one changed into the other.

and if so, where does one draw that line, given the huge variances we get in, say, dog breeds over a relatively short period of selective breeding within recorded human history?

That's an interesting point that I'll get into if anyone takes up the 29+ banner and we make it all the way to alleged fossil evidence. If all dogs are one species, then shouldn't we require that fossils with less difference than that known in dogs to be classified as the same species?

Or the observed instances of speciation that we've produced in a lab? By all accounts, our ability to observe both speciation and vastly different physiologies is fairly comprehensive, so what is this definition of species we're using that ignores both of those in order to make macro-evolution some distant thing?

We never agreed that speciation was equivalent to macroevolution, and in fact have had a definition of macroevolution that specified change above the species level.

As to this idea that we're assuming that these mutations will continue in a single direction... first of all, no we're not, as I've acknowledged multiple times that they don't always go in the same direction, but this faux confusion as to where we'd even get the idea that they would is baffling:

Uh, Sparky, we got that idea from your analogy: "the logical view is that small, demonstrable changes will build up, just as it's logical to consider that if I walk solidly in one direction without interruption, I will eventually have walked a mile."

So, the changes occur, and we know it's possible for them to occur and continue to intensify in line with the predictive power of natural selection, and we also know that by any genetic or cladistic definition this would eventually vary an organism out of one species classification and therefore into another... maybe it is just an inference based on observable evidence, but that's kind of what science is.

Inference based on observation isn't scientific evidence. Inference can give ideas for objectively testable, risky, falsifiable predictions. Those predictions are scientific evidence. Try reading the TO bit on scientific evidence.

Would you quit it with this "were you there?" crap?

No.

And what defines taxonomic classifications if not genetic and morphological differences?

Addressed above. It's a matter of extent.

---

There is no such thing as "change above the species level".

[Mister Agenda]

Now, stop. If something is observed to happen, and we have evidence of it happening, then is that not reason enough to infer that it will continue to happen, without the intervention of some outside force?

No, it isn't. rasetsu already explained this, and Mister Agenda kudoed it. To my knowledge they're not YECs, yet they see the error in your method. This isn't some creationist trick. Your argument is faulty - it's an extrapolation fallacy coupled with an argument from ignorance fallacy.

I thought rasetsu made a good post, but I didn't agree with absolutely all of it, I just thought she brought up some good points. As I mentioned elsewhere, I agree with Esquilax broadly that with no mechanism to explain how microevolutionary changes would be prevented from accumulating to the point of speciation, assuming that microevolution can't lead to speciation given enough time is like assuming gravity wouldn't work the same way in another galaxy. However, if what we observed was no apparent genetic relationships between different species, we would be justified in concluding there is some mechanism preventing speciation even if we didn't know what it was, so I lean more to rasetsu at this point. So the fact of microevolution alone doesn't get you to speciation, but what we observe is a nested hierarchy of genetic relationships that indicate common descent, and the observed occurrence of microevolution readily explains those relationships and allows us to make predictions that check out, like related species having the same ERVs.

That said, the arguments for and against assumption of microevolution being something that can't accumulate into macroevolution have been made, and I think it would be productive to move on to other liines of evidence,

Key line is, "At some point in their history..." This is the same as your skink. You see differences and assume change. Further, IIRC the only definition of macroevolution introduced in the thread was given by Mister Agenda: "Macroevolution is evolution above the species level leading to taxonomic divergence." Speciation itself is not macroevolution by this definition.

I may not have phrased that well. By 'evolution above the species level, I meant 'not confined to within a species'. Speciation would still count as macroevolution. Is this a 'kind' issue, where closely-related species count as the same kind? If so, a definition of 'kind' would be helpful so we can focus on evolution at that level. Would you agree that for practical purposes, 'kind' is equivalent to 'family', such as the Family Felinae (cats)?