Test My Theory: Macro evolution DOES happen?

[Jesster]

Ok... jester doesn't care, but others may want to check the accuracy of that statement!

No, Jesster just thinks that RoadRunner should bring in substance instead of... well, nothing.

The only thing inaccurate about my statement is that creationists may not of invented the terms, however they are the only ones really trying to push it today. As said earlier in this thread, the only real difference between micro and macro evolution is time. They are worthless terms, but creationists seem stuck on them anyway.

[RoadRunner79]

How did you come to that conclusion? I don't see the multiplication and addition of micro + time resulting in macro... what is your evidence or reasoning for this claim?

Also, in most of the fossil record we see either very small differences, over very large periods of time, and fairly large changes over relatively short periods of time. How do you account for this as you have defined things here?

[Jesster]

How did you come to that conclusion?  I don't see the multiplication and addition of micro + time resulting in macro... what is your evidence or reasoning for this claim?

Also, in most of the fossil record we see either very small differences, over very large periods of time, and fairly large changes over relatively short periods of time.  How do you account for this as you have defined things here?

Ah, and now we get down the the reason you posted like that. Finally. Evolution denial. The usual.

Stop being such a predictable creationist.

Sorry RR. I don't respect you enough to go through this dance with you again. I already know how that usually ends.

[RoadRunner79]

How did you come to that conclusion?  I don't see the multiplication and addition of micro + time resulting in macro... what is your evidence or reasoning for this claim?

Also, in most of the fossil record we see either very small differences, over very large periods of time, and fairly large changes over relatively short periods of time.  How do you account for this as you have defined things here?

Ah, and now we get down the the reason you posted like that. Finally. Evolution denial. The usual.

Stop being such a predictable creationist.

Sorry RR. I don't respect you enough to go through this dance with you again. I already know how that usually ends.

I don't remember any explanation for this in the past, however I did expect a response like this.... and ironically enough after you accuse me of adding nothing of substance.

[Jesster]

Ah, and now we get down the the reason you posted like that. Finally. Evolution denial. The usual.

Stop being such a predictable creationist.

Sorry RR. I don't respect you enough to go through this dance with you again. I already know how that usually ends.

I don't remember any explanation for this in the past,  however I did expect a response like this....  and ironically enough after you  accuse me of adding nothing of substance.

As if I cared what you thought. As I said, you've earned plenty of negative respect in my eyes before. I already know where evolution conversations go with you: around and around and around. I don't feel like doing that dance with you today (or likely ever). Go bother someone who gives at least half a fuck about you. There's a few here in this thread who might. Try them.

Oh yeah. I give meme responses to people I give zero fucks about. My next 50 replies to you in this thread will be exactly that. They will be especially shitty memes, because I don't want to waste too much effort on you.

[robvalue]

Indeed, macro and micro evolution are not scientific terms. If someone wants to claim that they are, please produce evidence to this effect.

At best they are informal ways of referring to time periods, for the same process. The only people who try and actually draw a line between the two are (in general) creationists.

[downbeatplumb]

How did you come to that conclusion?  I don't see the multiplication and addition of micro + time resulting in macro... what is your evidence or reasoning for this claim?

Also, in most of the fossil record we see either very small differences, over very large periods of time, and fairly large changes over relatively short periods of time.  How do you account for this as you have defined things here?

That would be down to the evolutionary pressures, if the environment favours the current body it does not change much.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth

But at other times the environment changes or another creature starts to invade the territory or lady squid start liking men squid with extra large tentacles.

Then you see relatively rapid changes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin%27s_finches

Developmental research in 2004 found that bone morphogenetic protein 4 (BMP4), and its differential expression during development, resulted in variation of beak size and shape among finches. BMP4 acts in the developing embryo to lay down skeletal features, including the beak.[28] The same group showed that the development of the different beak shapes in Darwin's finches are also influenced by slightly different timing and spatial expressions of a gene called calmodulin (CaM).[29] Calmodulin acts in a similar way to BMP4, affecting some of the features of beak growth. The authors suggest that changes in the temporal and spatial expression of these two factors are possible developmental controls of beak morphology. In a recent study genome sequencing revealed a 240 kilobase haplotype encompassing the ALX1 gene that encodes a transcription factor affecting craniofacial development is strongly associated with beak shape diversity

So sometimes subtle tweeks can exert large influences on body or in this case beak shape and will of course be due to evolution proceses.

During the survey voyage of HMS Beagle, Darwin was unaware of the significance of the birds of the Galápagos. He had learned how to preserve bird specimens while at the University of Edinburgh and had been keen on shooting, but he had no expertise in ornithology and by this stage of the voyage concentrated mainly on geology.[8] In Galápagos he mostly left bird shooting to his servant Syms Covington.[9] Nonetheless, these birds were to play an important part in the inception of Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection.
On the Galápagos Islands and afterward, Darwin thought in terms of "centres of creation" and rejected ideas concerning the transmutation of species.[10] From Henslow's teaching, he was interested in the geographical distribution of species, particularly links between species on oceanic islands and on nearby continents. On Chatham Island, he recorded that a mockingbird was similar to those he had seen in Chile, and after finding a different one on Charles Island he carefully noted where mockingbirds had been caught.[8] In contrast, he paid little attention to the finches. When examining his specimens on the way to Tahiti, Darwin noted that all of the mockingbirds on Charles Island were of one species, those from Albemarle of another, and those from James and Chatham Islands of a third. As they sailed home about nine months later, this, together with other facts, including what he had heard about Galápagos tortoises, made him wonder about the stability of species.[11][12]
Following his return from the voyage, Darwin presented the finches to the Zoological Society of London on 4 January 1837, along with other mammal and bird specimens that he had collected. The bird specimens, including the finches, were given to John Gould, the famous English ornithologist, for identification. Gould set aside his paying work and at the next meeting, on 10 January, reported that the birds from the Galápagos Islands that Darwin had thought were blackbirds, "gross-beaks" and finches were actually "a series of ground Finches which are so peculiar [as to form] an entirely new group, containing 12 species". This story made the newspapers.[13][14]
Darwin had been in Cambridge at that time. In early March, he met Gould again and for the first time got a full report on the findings, including the point that his Galápagos "wren" was another closely allied species of finch. The mockingbirds that Darwin had labelled by island were separate species rather than just varieties. Gould found more species than Darwin had expected,[15] and concluded that 25 of the 26 land birds were new and distinct forms, found nowhere else in the world but closely allied to those found on the South American continent.[14] Darwin now saw that, if the finch species were confined to individual islands, like the mockingbirds, this would help to account for the number of species on the islands, and he sought information from others on the expedition. Specimens had also been collected by Captain Robert FitzRoy, FitzRoy’s steward Harry Fuller and Darwin's servant Covington, who had labelled them by island.[16] From these, Darwin tried to reconstruct the locations from where he had collected his own specimens. The conclusions supported his idea of the transmutation of species.[14]

[Amarok]

it's funny road kill accuses others of accuracy of statements without a shred of evidence for his claim about fossils (that aren't from creationist sites) and is contradicted by just about every expert on the subject but of course he'll just repeat his loopy conspiracy theories

---

How did you come to that conclusion?  I don't see the multiplication and addition of micro + time resulting in macro... what is your evidence or reasoning for this claim?

Also, in most of the fossil record we see either very small differences, over very large periods of time, and fairly large changes over relatively short periods of time.  How do you account for this as you have defined things here?

That would be down to the evolutionary pressures, if the environment favours the current body it does not change much.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth

But at other times the environment changes or another creature starts to invade the territory or lady squid start liking men squid with extra large tentacles.

Then you see relatively rapid changes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin%27s_finches

Developmental research in 2004 found that bone morphogenetic protein 4 (BMP4), and its differential expression during development, resulted in variation of beak size and shape among finches. BMP4 acts in the developing embryo to lay down skeletal features, including the beak.[28] The same group showed that the development of the different beak shapes in Darwin's finches are also influenced by slightly different timing and spatial expressions of a gene called calmodulin (CaM).[29] Calmodulin acts in a similar way to BMP4, affecting some of the features of beak growth. The authors suggest that changes in the temporal and spatial expression of these two factors are possible developmental controls of beak morphology. In a recent study genome sequencing revealed a 240 kilobase haplotype encompassing the ALX1 gene that encodes a transcription factor affecting craniofacial development is strongly associated with beak shape diversity

So sometimes subtle tweeks can exert large influences on body or in this case beak shape and will of course be due to evolution proceses.

During the survey voyage of HMS Beagle, Darwin was unaware of the significance of the birds of the Galápagos. He had learned how to preserve bird specimens while at the University of Edinburgh and had been keen on shooting, but he had no expertise in ornithology and by this stage of the voyage concentrated mainly on geology.[8] In Galápagos he mostly left bird shooting to his servant Syms Covington.[9] Nonetheless, these birds were to play an important part in the inception of Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection.
On the Galápagos Islands and afterward, Darwin thought in terms of "centres of creation" and rejected ideas concerning the transmutation of species.[10] From Henslow's teaching, he was interested in the geographical distribution of species, particularly links between species on oceanic islands and on nearby continents. On Chatham Island, he recorded that a mockingbird was similar to those he had seen in Chile, and after finding a different one on Charles Island he carefully noted where mockingbirds had been caught.[8] In contrast, he paid little attention to the finches. When examining his specimens on the way to Tahiti, Darwin noted that all of the mockingbirds on Charles Island were of one species, those from Albemarle of another, and those from James and Chatham Islands of a third. As they sailed home about nine months later, this, together with other facts, including what he had heard about Galápagos tortoises, made him wonder about the stability of species.[11][12]
Following his return from the voyage, Darwin presented the finches to the Zoological Society of London on 4 January 1837, along with other mammal and bird specimens that he had collected. The bird specimens, including the finches, were given to John Gould, the famous English ornithologist, for identification. Gould set aside his paying work and at the next meeting, on 10 January, reported that the birds from the Galápagos Islands that Darwin had thought were blackbirds, "gross-beaks" and finches were actually "a series of ground Finches which are so peculiar [as to form] an entirely new group, containing 12 species". This story made the newspapers.[13][14]
Darwin had been in Cambridge at that time. In early March, he met Gould again and for the first time got a full report on the findings, including the point that his Galápagos "wren" was another closely allied species of finch. The mockingbirds that Darwin had labelled by island were separate species rather than just varieties. Gould found more species than Darwin had expected,[15] and concluded that 25 of the 26 land birds were new and distinct forms, found nowhere else in the world but closely allied to those found on the South American continent.[14] Darwin now saw that, if the finch species were confined to individual islands, like the mockingbirds, this would help to account for the number of species on the islands, and he sought information from others on the expedition. Specimens had also been collected by Captain Robert FitzRoy, FitzRoy’s steward Harry Fuller and Darwin's servant Covington, who had labelled them by island.[16] From these, Darwin tried to reconstruct the locations from where he had collected his own specimens. The conclusions supported his idea of the transmutation of species.[14]

Good post

But he's still massively exaggerating  the state of the fossil record

[robvalue]

The speed at which you see changes through evolution depends heavily on the life span of the species in question. (Sorry if this has already been mentioned.)

If an insect dies after a day, natural selection is going to act very quickly. If some bastard creature lives for 200 years, natural selection is going to be far slower. That's why animals with short life spans are generally used when studying evolution "in the lab". Otherwise, you simply won't be able to observe it happening because you yourself will be dead long before there is any noticable change.

It really does make my brain hurt that anyone can think evolution doesn't happen. Random changes around the norm, combined with natural selection, produces a shift in the norm. How hard is that to grasp?

[RoadRunner79]

I don't remember any explanation for this in the past,  however I did expect a response like this....  and ironically enough after you  accuse me of adding nothing of substance.

As if I cared what you thought. As I said, you've earned plenty of negative respect in my eyes before. I already know where evolution conversations go with you: around and around and around. I don't feel like doing that dance with you today (or likely ever). Go bother someone who gives at least half a fuck about you. There's a few here in this thread who might. Try them.

Oh yeah. I give meme responses to people I give zero fucks about. My next 50 replies to you in this thread will be exactly that. They will be especially shitty memes, because I don't want to waste too much effort on you.

Ok sweetie... take care....
As I said, I didn't expect any more from you any way.