Evolution, religion, and ignorance.

[Esquilax]

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

Hence the seven pages of supporting arguments. Why do you keep attempting to characterize this as though I just flat out asserted something was a certain way, and then stopped talking?

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.

I agree with your definition, I'm just saying that part of how we determine what is and isn't a different species is genetic makeup and physiological markers. Would you not agree that if we can start with organism A and then trace its lineage down to organism B X number of generations later, and B is sufficiently genetically, physiologically and reproductively different from an example of organism A, then it would be a different species?

Or are you using some definition of the term species that doesn't take into account what an organism looks like and what its genes are like?

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.

That's an offensive oversimplification; there's much more to it than that, and such support is even mentioned in the skink articles I linked. More importantly, in the case of the wall lizards, we have a record of what the initial breeding population was, and what the descendants are like, and shock horror, there are rather radical differences not only from what their ancestors were, but also when compared to another population that was placed in a different environment. Aside from their marked physiological change, an entirely new valve system had appeared in one set of the lizards owing to the new diet they had had to adapt to in this new environment, putting the lie to your claim that nothing new develops through mutations.

Now, these are changes to the physiology and internal structures of an organism, an introduced species for which we know exactly what the predecessor species was like, that took place over just twenty years, in a definite singular direction. Imagine what could happen over millions of years.

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?

The evolutionary changes present in any single organism are bound to be small, which is the point; this is a gradual process that occurs in populations. I also note the clear goalpost moving: if an organism isn't different enough then you say it's the same species, and if it's notably different you just chastise us for "assuming" that it was linked to its predecessor.

How the fuck does one falsify your position if you just keep oscillating between one of two claims, clearly without understanding how evolution works when it suits you?

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.

Speciation is change above the species level.

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."

Do you understand the difference between the statements "this is possible" and "this is definite in every case"? Do you know what the word "some" denotes in a sentence?

No.

Then you are being dishonest.

Addressed above. It's a matter of extent.

And yet you sit here, refusing to provide evidence for your position, or defining what you'd need to see to falsify your position...

[coldwx]

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

[Ksa]

I am not saying that there may be no God, I say that I know there is no God. According to scriptures, creation ended on the 6th day. But if that's so, why is evolution still carrying on? Why do we observe the apparition of new plants, new animal species, new micro-organisms every day? Who is creating this? All that, is new creation, emerging.

In fact, creation is an ongoing process, it does not ever stop. It takes no coffee breaks, it doesn't rest. It keeps going. What I am doing at this very moment is an act of creation. The text I am writing now never existed before and now it does.

The very idea that one God created this world is truly idiotic. How can one create something that keeps evolving? That is out of his control? It inevitably implies that the parts evolving, that are not under control were not created by God. Thus, if God did not create creation, he is no creator. In fact, he is a human imagination that blinds them from the truth that they are all alone in the darkness, with no-one watching over them. No one judging and no one caring.

[John V]

I agree with your definition, I'm just saying that part of how we determine what is and isn't a different species is genetic makeup and physiological markers. Would you not agree that if we can start with organism A and then trace its lineage down to organism B X number of generations later, and B is sufficiently genetically, physiologically and reproductively different from an example of organism A, then it would be a different species?

Possibly. The devil is in the details.

1. What do you mean by "trace its lineage"? If you're speaking of actual observation, than I'm probably on board. If you're referring to inference from differences in existing species, I disagree that that constitutes tracing a lineage.

2. How do you operationally define "sufficiently different"?

That's an offensive oversimplification; there's much more to it than that, and such support is even mentioned in the skink articles I linked. More importantly, in the case of the wall lizards, we have a record of what the initial breeding population was, and what the descendants are like, and shock horror, there are rather radical differences not only from what their ancestors were, but also when compared to another population that was placed in a different environment. Aside from their marked physiological change, an entirely new valve system had appeared in one set of the lizards owing to the new diet they had had to adapt to in this new environment, putting the lie to your claim that nothing new develops through mutations.

Do you think that all the varieties of dogs come from mutations, or selective breeding of existing variation potential from ancestral wolves? You're assuming mutation, rather than existing variation potential which expressed due to a change in environment. What should be done is to repeat it in a controlled way. Record the genome of the initial population and check subsequent generations to see exactly what happened. That would be pretty good evidence.

The short time period also works against you. Why don't we see more such change if it's so easy?

Now, these are changes to the physiology and internal structures of an organism, an introduced species for which we know exactly what the predecessor species was like, that took place over just twenty years, in a definite singular direction. Imagine what could happen over millions of years.

Scientific evidence shouldn't be based on imagination.

The evolutionary changes present in any single organism are bound to be small, which is the point; this is a gradual process that occurs in populations. I also note the clear goalpost moving: if an organism isn't different enough then you say it's the same species, and if it's notably different you just chastise us for "assuming" that it was linked to its predecessor.

It's not my fault that evolution lacks clear definitions for basic terms like species.

How the fuck does one falsify your position if you just keep oscillating between one of two claims, clearly without understanding how evolution works when it suits you?

How does one falsify a position based on imaginary extrapolation?

Speciation is change above the species level.

Seems to be change at the species level to me.

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."

Do you understand the difference between the statements "this is possible" and "this is definite in every case"?

Yes. Neither of those is present above. You say "will," which is closer to "this is definite" than "this is possible."

Do you know what the word "some" denotes in a sentence?

Yes, but that's not in the quote above.

[Tonus]

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

Thanks for that link, that's a pretty interesting article and does a nice job of clarifying where the differences are between micro/macro evolution and why it's not accurate to claim that macro is just lots and lots of micro.

[Angrboda]

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." ... 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...

Ring species, by exhibiting the entire process of speciation - ie "macro"evolution - simulataneously across space, rather than sequentially across time, provides independent demonstration that there is no binding genetic limitations of variability at biological level that would preclude speciation, whether we might otherwise be said to know enough about genetics to have been able to make this determination a priori or not.

I knew that sentence was going to be problematic. What I was aiming for is that we don't know enough about the mechanics of genetics, the molecular basis, to conclude that there are not barriers to speciation at that level. I don't think there are, but as the general point of my post explained, demonstrating that there are no such molecular level barriers to speciation depends on inference from a pattern of evidence, which includes ring species, not from either our knowledge of the chemistry and physiology of genetics, nor from making a uniformitarian assumption that microevolution leads to macroevolution on the basis of trend. Since it's not known what the null hypothesis is based on a causal understanding of speciation, the proof that there is no barrier to speciation lies elsewhere, in less direct inferences. Evolution is no different from any other science, if you don't have explicit demonstration of the mechanism, whether acupuncture or macroevolution, you have to resort to indirect proof. Evidence like ring species, ERVs, and molecular phylogeny provide that proof. An assumption of uniformitarianism about genetic processes is not itself evidence; the molecular chemistry of genetics is too complex for such assumptions themselves to bear the weight of the inference to macroevolution. That requires actual evidence, not mere assumptions.

[Anomalocaris]

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

Thanks for that link, that's a pretty interesting article and does a nice job of clarifying where the differences are between micro/macro evolution and why it's not accurate to claim that macro is just lots and lots of micro.

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.

[John V]

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."

[downbeatplumb]

Do you think that all the varieties of dogs come from mutations, or selective breeding of existing variation potential from ancestral wolves? You're assuming mutation, rather than existing variation potential which expressed due to a change in environment.

Change "within existing variation potential" is still evolution in the fullest meaning of the word. Mutations played a big part in earlier life forms but now its mainly tinkering with the existing genes. Which is why sea going mammals do not have gills.

You aren't arguing against what you think you are.

The evolutionary changes present in any single organism are bound to be small, which is the point; this is a gradual process that occurs in populations. I also note the clear goalpost moving: if an organism isn't different enough then you say it's the same species, and if it's notably different you just chastise us for "assuming" that it was linked to its predecessor.

It's not my fault that evolution lacks clear definitions for basic terms like species.

Type species into google and you get.

Species:

a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding.

Why is this not clear?

[Rampant.A.I.]

Because it's either not close enough or too much more clear than his personal definition of "kinds" for his liking.