|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: "Macro" vs "Micro" genetic "kind" mechanism? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi again Ichiban,
Macro evolution has not been demonstrated, ... You are talking mechanisms that dont exist in nature. One of the problems here is what is meant by "macroevolution" ... if Coyote is talking about speciation and you are talking about sudden transformation, then you will inevitably disagree ... while you can both be right. see MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?:
quote: I'll just note that the definitions, as used in biological evolution science, are that "microevolution" is the evolution - the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation - that occurs within a species, while "macroevolution" is the development of a tree of common ancestry by speciation - the division of an ancestral population into two or more reproductively isolated daughter populations - (causing branches in the tree) and evolution - the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation - of each branch species independently of all the others. References:(1) Berkeley U. website, Evolution 101 (2) U. of Mich website, Evolution and the Process of Speciation and Evolution and Natural Selection (3) Talk Origins website, What is Evolution? (references some other definitions) Based on these definitions macroevolution involves speciation and microevolution, both of which are observed actual processes. Of course, the fact that species have been observed also means that there is no genetic barrier to the development of new species as reproductively isolated sibling species continue to evolve along different paths within different ecologies. Once you realize that this is what is meant by "micro" and "macro" within the science of evolutionary biology, and that no other mechanisms are necessary to explain the diversity of life we see - in the world around us, in history, in prehistory, in the fossil record and in the genetic record - then you may understand that there is no genetic barrier to macroevolution. If you are going to argue a different definition for "macroevolution" (as many creationists do) then realize that you are talking about something else, something that may very well never have happened. However then you are not arguing against evolution, but that "other" definition.
Message 206LOL! I know plenty about the "voluminous evidence" for macro-evolution. But okay not on this thread. About the voluminous evidence for macro-evolution, that is a whole nuther topic on its own I guess. On that note, what would you define as substantiated fact when it comes to macro-evolution? Speciation and nested hierarchies. These confirm macroevolution according to the usage of evolutionary biological science. Again, if you are using a different definition of "macroevolution" then you are talking about something NOT{evolution}. Enjoy.
... as you are new here, some posting tips: type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote: also check out (help) links on any formating questions when in the reply window. For other formating tips see Posting Tips Edited by RAZD, : added response at end Edited by RAZD, : ps by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
I am not 100 % sure but I'm pretty darned sure that the "kinds" issue is the end result of some history.
I think it is clear from the Bible that "kind" there means species. And I understand that is what it was taken as all through history up until around the mid 20th century. Then things went a bit awry: speciation has been shown to occur. That is when the literalists got into a tizzy and their definition of "kind" moved up and down the taxonomic levels. In fact, they seem to have either learned that they mustn't define it too carefully so it can be falsified or want it at several levels at once: high so it is harder to show in a short time and low enough to separate the other apes and us.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
I think it is clear from the Bible that "kind" there means species. And I understand that is what it was taken as all through history up until around the mid 20th century. I don't think so, I think that 'kind' means exactly when we say kind, so each kind of animal was a division by whatever arbitary basis they considered, probably below the species level. After all, Genesis 7:14 says "They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort", which implies a division of cattle by breed.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I think it is clear from the Bible that "kind" there means species. And I understand that is what it was taken as all through history up until around the mid 20th century. The word species is the Latin for 'kind', comparing KJV with the Latin Vulgate, part of Gen 1:25
quote: but to be fair, the Latin sometimes used a different word for kind, part of Gen 6:20
quote: Then people started trying to classify the species, or kinds, and the two sort of grew up together even as we stopped speaking Latin we still call them 'kinds' and give them Latin names. Naturally, when the evidence came in that these 'kinds' could become new 'kinds', it was all an atheist plot to muddy the issue. Kinds weren't kinds. I mean species weren't kinds, miyn were kinds -or bara min (the created kinds). If all else fails, stop using one old language and fall back on another.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Meddle Member (Idle past 1301 days) Posts: 179 From: Scotland Joined: |
quote: Isn't the Latin for kind in this verse actually 'genus'? Iuxta appears in both Latin verses you quoted, and as far as I can tell means 'close to' so probably refers to after.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Isn't the Latin for kind in this verse actually 'genus'? yep -iuxta species suas or 'after their own kind' is {basically} the same as iuxta genus suum. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: All you have to do is read the Bible :-) e.g. Genesis 6:20 {KJV)
20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.
Kinds of cattle ? Does that make sense if "kind" is at the taxonomic level of "family" ?
quote: That seems to be pretty clear that the terminology was essentially invented by creationists. In fact the issue is purely artificial. If a creationist accepts an evolutionary relationship it is "within kinds" if he does not it is "between kinds". The presumed limits on evolution are assumed to "explain" why the creationist is right. All the creationist is saying is that reality has to conform to his beliefs. To show evolution between kinds you need to find a well-documented example of evolution that the creationist will refuse to accept (whale evolution is good) and get them to agree that it would be evolution between kinds. Then hope that he's open-minded enough to accept the evidence. (Good luck there).
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4747 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
iuxta as in iuxtapose or in a modern alphabet: juxtapose: next (latin) - place (french).
Genesis 2 17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness. 18 And we all live happily ever after.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2728 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, IchiBan.
Let me try to clarify this a little bit. Change happens. We know this: we have seen it happen. We have seen it happen in populations. We know that no individual has exactly the same genome as either of its parents, but rather, has a unique blending of the two parental genomes. We also know that there are many ways in which new changes are introduced into the genome. This is a known, documented fact. And, this is what we call "evolution" (or "microevolution," if you prefer). It happens. We know it happens. So, what do you expect from a population that has existed for many, many, many generations? Many, many, many changes, right? Because populations change over time, increasing the amount time increases the amount of change, yeah? This is what we call a "null hypothesis." A null hypothesis is an explanation that holds true when nothing else is acting on the system. Then, we test all kinds of "alternate hypotheses," which are the "somethings else" that might be acting on the system, and, if a test uncovers no evidence for the alternate, we retain the null hypothesis as our explanation. If you were to find something else that was acting on the system, we would have reason to question the universality of evolution. But, since no one has yet presented a "something else" that passes scientific testing, Coyote has no choice but to uphold the null hypothesis. So, bring forth a tested hypothesis that prevents one "kind" from evolving into another "kind": this is the only way you can make evolution go away. -Bluejay/Mantis/Thylacosmilus Darwin loves you.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
bluejay writes: So, bring forth a tested hypothesis that prevents one "kind" from evolving into another "kind": this is the only way you can make evolution go away. (Before the admins jump on me for all lowercase below, mybody weight can occasionally make a capital letter, but only at the sacrifice of considerable time and accuracy. Sorry in advance. i do use uppercase for emPHAsis) ...mmmmm....not quite the way i would have phrased that.it might be ok for the purpose here, but leaves a big "pounce" spot for creationists. so let me just state: There is no way a Sea Urchin evolves into a Rhinoceros. now, if i may engage in a small flight of fancy: there is a remotely possible way that, over a very, verylong period of time, sea urchins gradually evolve into various sea-urchinish daughter populations, and perhaps one of these daughter populations branches into daughter populations that are mobile with fin-like things and so on and after billions of years later there might be creatures using the accidently poorly reproduced fin-like appendages that happens to work well on land from one of these daughter population offshoots (the other accidently poorly reproduced fin-like things mostly not working so well on land for those offspring) and that millions of years after that from one of these land offshoots, gosh darnit, there might be a creature that looks amazingly like what used to be, billions of years ago, what we know as a rhinoceros - but it wont be a rhinoceros. not at all. it would just be another case of parallel evolutionfilling an extremely similar ecological niche. when scientists analyze its DNA they will find that thiscreature is more closely related to the sea-urchin-looking things that descended from our old ancient sea urchins than to these other rhinoceros-looking things that descended from the old rhinoceros species. can you imagine their astonishment!and then imagine their delight! then, i suppose, if there are any creationists stillaround, they will look at this beast and tell the scientists they are all Daft - hey, it's a rhinoceros! my King James, version MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM ... MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMXCLIX, says so right here: "rhinoceros kind". however, in all probability, these sea-urchin-lookingdescendents will look nothing like their ancestors and these rhinoceros-looking descendents will look nothing like theirs. - xongsmith Truth is often so much stranger than Fiction couldever hope to be!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2728 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Xongsmith. Welcome to EvC!
xongsmith writes: Bluejay writes: So, bring forth a tested hypothesis that prevents one "kind" from evolving into another "kind": this is the only way you can make evolution go away. ...mmmmm....not quite the way i would have phrased that. it might be ok for the purpose here, but leaves a big "pounce" spot for creationists. You have a problem with creationists trying to do real science? I'll have to disagree with you: I mean, what's the worst that could happen? They'll claim that they have scientific evidence against evolution? If they really do, we'll surely benefit from the new knowledge we gain. But, if they really don't, nothing will have changed. Anyway, the whole point of this thread was to see if creationists would propose a mechanism that prevents evolution from creating distinct "kinds" from a single lineage. ----- (P.S. I don't think the admins are going to worry too much about all lower case when you punctuate and write in legible English otherwise: they're pretty strict, but they're not unreasonably anal) -Bluejay/Mantis/Thylacosmilus Darwin loves you.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
IchiBan Member (Idle past 4968 days) Posts: 88 Joined: |
Macro-evolution as I see it has not been demonstrated, I will use the recent example of salamanders as a ring species from a few years ago to point that out.
However if you insist it is so, then I would suggest it is more correct to say that there is no known genetic barrier to macro-evolution that has been found to date rather than to say there is no such barrier that exists.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
Bluejay writes: You have a problem with creationists trying to do real science? I'll have to disagree with you: I mean, what's the worst that could happen? They'll claim that they have scientific evidence against evolution? If they really do, we'll surely benefit from the new knowledge we gain. But, if they really don't, nothing will have changed. Sorry - i think we are talking about different things? (Aside: Yes, I would have a problem with Creationists trying to do real science, just as I would have a problem with a NASCAR mechanic performing brain surgery, but that's another day...) it was how you phrased it:
...a tested hypothesis that prevents one "kind" from evolving into another "kind"... i think you need to emphasize that the first "kind" has to be a manymanymanymanymany,many times over the ancestor of the second "kind". my hyperbolic story took an absurd application of your challenge. the YE Creationist is thinking 6000 years timeframe - everything is already here - nothing changes into anything else.... also your test is not practical, since none of us would ever live long enough to see the end, which is never. perhaps you had an ulterior motive to get them all to go off somewhere and eagerly run this experiment to test the hypothesis, an experiment that takes infinity, just to get them out of the way and off our backs? - xongsmith
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
IchiBan writes: Macro-evolution as I see it has not been demonstrated well, if you cannot accept the eohippus story, developed painstakingly by career scientists who have devoted their entire professional lives on eliminating error and bias in their work, then we have more of a problem with you than with them. i know there are many fields of science where i have to throw up my hands and take their word for it. we could insist that you read/study/learn more deeply from the textbooks all of the things that you would need to learn so that you may be able to understand how the scientists have come to their conclusions.
However if [..they..] insist it is so, then I would suggest it is more correct to say that there is no known genetic barrier to macro-evolution that has been found to date rather than to say there is no such barrier that exists. well now this sounds much more reasonable. a well-couched phrase.science uses that "not found to date" modifier many times. all of the currently widely accepted theories in science are certainly understood to include that little modifier "as far as we know to date". (side note: how would i put in square backets themselves? is it just doubling up leftsquarebacket leftsquarebracket and so on? let me try: [[...]) -> oo the second one worked, so [...] should work. dang - now i forgot why i wanted to be able to do that - oh well. WAIT I REMEMBERED WHY. and made the edit. Edited by xongsmith, : remembered why - xongsmith
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thank you Ichiban,
Macro-evolution as I see it has not been demonstrated, ... I note that you have not provided an alternative definition for macroevolution to what I presented to you. Good, that means we agree on the term applying then to speciation and the formation of nested hierarchies of relationships, and not to any necessary large scale degree of change in either species. And again, what your opinion is does not matter, it does not change reality, it does not cause speciation to suddenly stop or the fossil record to change. This is speciation in the fossil record of Pelycodus:
Three different speciation branches from the main trunk, animals that went on to form basic types of primates, btw ... including humans.
... I will use the recent example of salamanders as a ring species from a few years ago to point that out. Ring species are good example of incipient speciation, of finding the minimal difference necessary for division of a parent population into reproductively isolated daughter populations. There are other examples of more complete speciation, especially in plants.
However if you insist it is so, then I would suggest it is more correct to say that there is no known genetic barrier to macro-evolution that has been found to date rather than to say there is no such barrier that exists. That there is no barrier is demonstrated by convergent species, like the sugar glider and the flying squirrel: nothing prevented them from evolving such similarity to fill a similar ecological niche. What this means is that the concept of a barrier that would prevent such evolution is invalidated, demonstrated to be a false concept. The sun has been found to be the central core of the solar system, around which the earth and the other planets orbit. We could say that this is only what has been observed to date, but that would be rather silly. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : silly by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024