Evolution, religion, and ignorance.

[Anomalocaris]

"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."

Microevolution obviously does not explain THE history of life. But it does fully explain why there is A history of life at all. If there wasn't microevolution, then the forms of life can not interact with any changes in environment and all life would be much the same for all time through time and there would be no history of life to speak off. But if there is microevolution, then life would interacts with changes in environment, and this inevitasbly leads to changes in forms of life through time, leading inevitably to a 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."

No, speciation is not a direct consequence of changes in frequencies of alleles in A population. Speciation IS a direct consequence of independent changes in frequencies of alleles in what is formerly a population, but has for a variety of environmental reasons been separated into two or more reproductively separated populations.

[John V]

I'm not even asserting that it's literally happened at this point, just ascertaining that you're on board with the idea that genetic and physiological details play a part in determining species classifications.

Sure, although you'd have more to go on if there were certain predetermined levels of change necessary to proclaim a new species. You'd also want to determine what the result is if genetic and physiological factors conflict with the BSC.

Now, as it happens, if you accept that then there are certain things I would point you to, but I have a horrible suspicion that, say, if I show you fruit flies demonstrating this under laboratory conditions you'll object on the grounds that they didn't become dragonflies, or something like that.

Possibly. As noted, "play a part in" is pretty nebulous. You seem to be trying to get me to agree to something that leaves you with a mile of wiggle room. Is that science?

I grant that it's something of a fuzzy line, but given the point of the passage you're responding to I felt safe in going general. Like, I'm sure I don't need to point out how different dogs are from raccoons, or anything like that.

You need to do something. As I noted in a previous post, you might measure the different species of dogs for different characteristics, then take the greatest variance for each characteristic and say that two specimens must exhibit greater variance than that in order to be considered different species. It's not perfect, but it's something objective.

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.

However, predictions are often made based on prior gathered evidence in science.

Yes, I've already noted that inference can be good for making testable predictions, and proposed a test on the lizards.

---

That is ironic coming from one who relies on zero evidence for the existence of his god.

I'm not saying you're ignorant if you don't accept my god.

The proof for evolution is there for you to understand. You simply wish to dismiss it because it conflicts with your nonsensical faith.

At first I was a Christian evolutionist. I had been taught evolution in school and accepted it. It didn't bother me. One day I got into it with a friend who was a creationist and he asked for evidence. I didn't have any. I looked and was dissatisfied with what I found.

[Cato]

Nope, just the ones that put your god in the unemployment line.

No, just the ones that can't be supported with scientific evidence.

Exlax insists that I don't understand evolution if I reject the claim that evidence for microevolution is necessarily macroevolution, yet we've seen that there are evolutionist scientists who also hold that position.

Some linked to TO's 29 evidences. I showed some of the problems with the first one, and no one has pursued it.

Try cutting the insults and showing the proof.

Oh for fuck's sake. Just a quip as I have not engaged the debate. Get a grip.

I will now leave this observation. Your scepticism regarding the merits of macroevolution cannot be taken seriously since you obviously don't apply the same standard when evaluating the evidence for God. You must accept that evolution, including speciation, is the one best explanation for what we have thusfar observed. You have yet to provide another. Please note that you disagreeing with or not yet affirming macroevolution does not mean that it isn't still the best explanation. Your arguments here betray a conclusion already reached and a desperate attempt to rationalize it into existence.

[coldwx]

Nope, just the ones that put your god in the unemployment line.

No, just the ones that can't be supported with scientific evidence.

Exlax insists that I don't understand evolution if I reject the claim that evidence for microevolution is necessarily macroevolution, yet we've seen that there are evolutionist scientists who also hold that position.

Some linked to TO's 29 evidences. I showed some of the problems with the first one, and no one has pursued it.

Try cutting the insults and showing the proof.

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.

[John V]

Oh for fuck's sake. Just a quip as I have not engaged the debate. Get a grip.

I will now leave this observation. Your scepticism regarding the merits of macroevolution cannot be taken seriously since you obviously don't apply the same standard when evaluating the evidence for God. You must accept that evolution, including speciation, is the one best explanation for what we have thusfar observed. You have yet to provide another. Please note that you disagreeing with or not yet affirming macroevolution does not mean that it isn't still the best explanation. Your arguments here betray a conclusion already reached and a desperate attempt to rationalize it into existence.

Except I used to believe in evolution and it didn't bother me, so there was no need for desperate rationalization.

[LastPoet]

Except I used to believe in evolution and it didn't bother me, so there was no need for desperate rationalization.

And what an accident it must have been. Despite the brain damage, I'm glad you're ok.

[John V]

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

[coldwx]

"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."

Microevolution obviously does not explain THE history of life. But it does fully explain why there is A history of life at all. If there wasn't microevolution, then the forms of life can not interact with any changes in environment and all life would be much the same for all time through time and there would be no history of life to speak off. But if there is microevolution, then life would interacts with changes in environment, and this inevitasbly leads to changes in forms of life through time, leading inevitably to a 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."

No, speciation is not a direct consequence of changes in frequencies of alleles in A population. Speciation IS a direct consequence of independent changes in frequencies of alleles in what is formerly a population, but has for a variety of environmental reasons been separated into two or more reproductively separated populations.

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.

[Rampant.A.I.]

Oh for fuck's sake. Just a quip as I have not engaged the debate. Get a grip.

I will now leave this observation. Your scepticism regarding the merits of macroevolution cannot be taken seriously since you obviously don't apply the same standard when evaluating the evidence for God. You must accept that evolution, including speciation, is the one best explanation for what we have thusfar observed. You have yet to provide another. Please note that you disagreeing with or not yet affirming macroevolution does not mean that it isn't still the best explanation. Your arguments here betray a conclusion already reached and a desperate attempt to rationalize it into existence.

Except I used to believe in evolution and it didn't bother me, so there was no need for desperate rationalization.

[Anomalocaris]

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.